Court Opinion

ID: 2968772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-22 07:59:32.697954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:28:56.232818
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 12-6952

ALLEN DOUGLAS MAY,

                      Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                      Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:10-hc-02222-FL)

Submitted:   August 16, 2012                 Decided:   August 21, 2012

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Allen Douglas May, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Allen Douglas May seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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 August 18, 2011.       The notice of appeal was filed on May 10,

2012. *   Because May 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

      *
       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 (1988).

                                       2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED

                                3