Case Name: Michael Ray KING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank PERRY, Secretary, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-01
Citations: 651 F. App'x 195
Docket Number: No. 16-6435
Parties: Michael Ray KING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank PERRY, Secretary, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 651
Pages: 195–196

Head Matter:
Michael Ray KING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank PERRY, Secretary, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6435
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 26, 2016
Decided: June 1, 2016
Michael Ray King, Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Ray King seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as successive 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).
The district court's order was entered on the docket on January 8, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on March 9, 2016. Because King 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, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).