Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07541/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07541-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Alonzo Tunstall
Appellant
Bryan Wells
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7541

CHARLES ALONZO TUNSTALL-BEY,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

BRYAN WELLS,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:13-hc-02090-BO)

Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Alonzo Tunstall, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7541 Doc: 17 Filed: 03/19/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Alonzo Tunstall-Bey seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing 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 

November 20, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed on September 

30, 2014.* Because Tunstall-Bey 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

 * 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: 14-7541 Doc: 17 Filed: 03/19/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7541 Doc: 17 Filed: 03/19/2015 Pg: 3 of 3