Rayshawn Pearson v. Joseph McFadden, No. 18-6600 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6600 RAYSHAWN PEARSON, a/k/a Rayshawn Kalif Pearson, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN JOSEPH MCFADDEN, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (9:14-cv-03943-TMC) Submitted: September 18, 2018 Decided: September 21, 2018 Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rayshawn Kalif Pearson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rayshawn Pearson seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting Respondent’s summary judgment motion, and denying relief on Pearson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on August 15, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed on May 13, 2018. * Because Pearson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 2