Billy Courtright v. Warden Young, No. 22-7204 (4th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-7204 BILLY JACK COURTRIGHT, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN YOUNG, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Frank W. Volk, District Judge. (5:21-cv-00353) Submitted: March 21, 2023 Decided: March 24, 2023 Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy Jack Courtright, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Billy Jack Courtright, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party in a civil case, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 July 5, 2022. Courtright filed the notice of appeal on October 12, 2022. * Because Courtright 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 Courtright could have delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). * 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.
