Case Name: Charles Alonzo TUNSTALL-BEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bryan WELLS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-19
Citations: 597 F. App'x 749
Docket Number: No. 14-7541
Parties: Charles Alonzo TUNSTALL-BEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bryan WELLS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 597
Pages: 749–750

Head Matter:
Charles Alonzo TUNSTALL-BEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bryan WELLS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-7541.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 17, 2015.
Decided: March 19, 2015.
Charles Alonzo Tunstall, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (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 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, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).