Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07935/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07935-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-7935

MALCOM MAXWELL RYIDU-X, a/k/a Richard Janey,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN WAYNE A. WEBB; MD CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION -

HAGERSTOWN; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:14-cv-02408-WDQ)

Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: April 26, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Malcom Maxwell Ryidu-X, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7935 Doc: 5 Filed: 04/26/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Malcom Maxwell Ryidu-X seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on 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 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’s order was entered on the docket on 

February 24, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed, at the 

earliest, on December 1, 2015. Because Ryidu-X 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

Appeal: 15-7935 Doc: 5 Filed: 04/26/2016 Pg: 2 of 2