Court Opinion

ID: 2787836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-03-20 15:01:26.409232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:06:07.626798
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 14-7541

CHARLES ALONZO TUNSTALL-BEY,

                      Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

BRYAN WELLS,

                      Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:13-hc-02090-BO)

Submitted:   March 17, 2015                 Decided:   March 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Alonzo Tunstall, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 (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

      *
       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
(1988).

                                      2
before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                    DISMISSED

                                     3