Court Opinion

ID: 3197896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-04-26 19:01:12.299529+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:11.925065
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 16-6109

BRIAN M. BLAKEMAN,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

JOE SOLANA, Superintendent,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief
District Judge. (5:15-hc-02096-D)

Submitted:   April 21, 2016                 Decided:   April 26, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian M. Blakeman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Brian M. Blakeman seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing as untimely 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 (2007).

       The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

October 5, 2015.        The notice of appeal was filed on December 29,

2015. *     Because Blakeman 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 his motion for

appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal.             We dispense with

oral       argument   because   the   facts   and   legal   contentions   are

       *
       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
adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before   this   court   and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                DISMISSED

                                     3