Corey Greene v. Erik Hooks, No. 20-6083 (4th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6083 COREY D. GREENE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ERIK A. HOOKS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cv-00100-FDW) Submitted: May 19, 2020 Decided: May 22, 2020 Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Corey D. Greene, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Corey D. Greene seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. In civil cases, parties have 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 entered its order on November 27, 2019. Greene filed the notice of appeal on January 1, 2020, by delivering the notice to prison officials for mailing to the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). Because Greene failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny his motion for a copy of the record, and 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 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.