Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06900/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06900-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Wayne Maynard
Appellant
Superintendent Stancil
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6900

KEVIN WAYNE MAYNARD,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

SUPERINTENDENT STANCIL,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:12-hc-02047-FL)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 23, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Wayne Maynard, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-6900 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Wayne Maynard 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 22, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed, at the 

earliest, on July 1, 2016.* Because Maynard failed to file a 

timely notice of appeal or 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

 * 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: 16-6900 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/23/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6900 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/23/2016 Pg: 3 of 3