Case ID: f-appx_697/html/0149-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James TRAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN; Attorney General of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 17-6735
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: August 24, 2017
    Decided: August 29, 2017
    James Travis, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    
      Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges,
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Travis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on April 28, 2017. Travis deposited his notice of appeal in the prison’s internal mailing system at the earliest on May 31, 2017. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). Because Travis 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