Court Opinion

ID: 2795073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-04-20 19:01:00.481038+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:16:55.478018
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 14-7838

ROBERT LEWIS JORDAN,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

MICHAEL B. HARDIN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:13-hc-02196-F)

Submitted:   April 16, 2015                 Decided:   April 20, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lewis Jordan, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Robert Lewis Jordan 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 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

March 18, 2014.        The notice of appeal was filed on December 10,

2014. *    Because Jordan 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
(1988).

                                           2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3