Court Opinion

ID: 2720933
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-08-26 19:00:43.658124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:02:42.418088
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 14-6950

KASEAN DAMONT BRYSON,

                        Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

SIDNEY HARKLEROAD,

                        Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.   Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (1:10-cv-00222-RJC)

Submitted:   August 21, 2014                 Decided:   August 26, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kasean Damont Bryson, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

           Kasean      Damont   Bryson       seeks   to   appeal   the    district

court’s order denying his supplemental motion to alter or amend

the judgment filed in his habeas proceedings.                    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 April 11, 2014.        The notice of appeal was filed on June 15,

2014. * Because Bryson 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