Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06435/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06435-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Ray King
Appellant
Frank Perry
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6435

MICHAEL RAY KING, 

Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

FRANK PERRY, Secretary, 

Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, 

Chief District Judge. (1:15-cv-00294-FDW) 

Submitted: May 26, 2016 Decided: June 1, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit 

Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Michael Ray King, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 16-6435 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/01/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM: 

Michael Ray King seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing as successive 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 

January 8, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on March 9, 

2016.* Because King 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, 

276 (1988). 

Appeal: 16-6435 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/01/2016 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: 16-6435 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/01/2016 Pg: 3 of 3