Ronald Timmons v. Casey Campbell, No. 21-6586 (4th Cir. 2021)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-6586 RONALD TIMMONS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CASEY M. CAMPBELL; MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:20-cv-00812-PWG) Submitted: December 21, 2021 Decided: December 22, 2021 Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Timmons, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronald Timmons seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 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 January 22, 2021. Timmons filed the notice of appeal at the earliest on March 31, 2021, the date written on his notice of appeal. * See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c), (d); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). Because Timmons 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 To the extent Timmons’ earlier correspondence to the district court, dated March 3, 2021, could be construed as a notice of appeal, it too was untimely filed. * 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.