Case ID: f-appx_453/html/0437-01.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

Eric Andrew RIEB, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert M. STEVENSON, III, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 11-6839.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 3, 2011.
    Decided: Nov. 16, 2011.
    Eric Andrew Rieb, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Erie Andrew Rieb seeks to appeal the district court’s orders granting Respondent summary judgment with respect to his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, denying reconsideration, and denying a preliminary injunction. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty 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 orders were entered on the docket on September 29, 2010; April 25, 2011; and May 4, 2011, respectively. The notice of appeal was filed on June 14, 2011. Because Rieb failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We also deny Rieb’s motion to proceed in forma pauper-is. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.