Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07838/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07838-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7838

ROBERT LEWIS JORDAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL B. HARDIN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (5:13-hc-02196-F)

Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 20, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lewis Jordan, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7838 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/20/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lewis Jordan seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 

petition. 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 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on 

March 18, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on December 10, 

2014.* Because Jordan 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 and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

 * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could 

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to 

the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 

(1988).

Appeal: 14-7838 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/20/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7838 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/20/2015 Pg: 3 of 3