Court Opinion

ID: 4323618
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-10-23 19:00:27.170087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:01:51.669803
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 18-6536

SAMSON JAMARCO COLEMAN,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

BRAD PERRITT,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:17-cv-00688-FDW)

Submitted: October 18, 2018                                   Decided: October 23, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KEENAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samson Jamarco Coleman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Samson Jamarco Coleman 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 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 December 21, 2017.

Coleman mailed the notice of appeal 135 days later, on May 5, 2018. Because Coleman

failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal

period, we 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

                                              2