Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07624/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07624-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 14-7624

DWIGHT WHITE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ROBERT G. JONES,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. L. Patrick Auld,

Magistrate Judge. (1:11-cv-00773-LPA-LPA)

Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwight White, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, 

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7624 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Dwight White seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s 

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.1 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 magistrate judge’s order was entered on the docket 

on April 30, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on October 

21, 2014.2 Because White 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 

 1 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the 

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).

2 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: 14-7624 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7624 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 3 of 3