Case Name: John Wayne SIMMONS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ennis OATES, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-24
Citations: 585 F. App'x 86
Docket Number: No. 14-6863
Parties: John Wayne SIMMONS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ennis OATES, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 86–86

Head Matter:
John Wayne SIMMONS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ennis OATES, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-6863.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 21, 2014.
Decided: Oct. 24, 2014.
John Wayne Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Wayne Simmons 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. RApp. 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 September 17, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed on May 30, 2014. Because Simmons 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 further note that the appeal is duplicative because Simmons has previously appealed the district court's order denying his § 2254 petition. 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).