Case Name: Chester LILLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNNAMED RESPONDENT; Central Prison Hosp., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-20
Citations: 673 F. App'x 353
Docket Number: No. 16-7585
Parties: Chester LILLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNNAMED RESPONDENT; Central Prison Hosp., Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 673
Pages: 353–354

Head Matter:
Chester LILLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNNAMED RESPONDENT; Central Prison Hosp., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 16-7585
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 17, 2017
Decided: January 20, 2017
Chester Lambert Lilley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Chester Lambert Lilley, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court's order and judgment dismissing Lilley's 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).
The district court's order was entered on the docket on October 3, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on November 9, 2016. Because Lilley 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, deny Lilley's motions for appointment of counsel, 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).