Case Name: Donnell FREEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Brad PERITT, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-21
Citations: 585 F. App'x 241
Docket Number: No. 14-7148
Parties: Donnell FREEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Brad PERITT, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 241–242

Head Matter:
Donnell FREEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Brad PERITT, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-7148.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 18, 2014.
Decided: Nov. 21, 2014.
Donnell Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. Jess D. Mekeel, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donnell Freeman 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 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).
The district court's order was entered on the docket on May 9, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on July 30, 2014. Because Freeman 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 also deny Freeman's pending motion for consideration. 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.
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, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).