Court Opinion

ID: 2754181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-11-21 20:01:08.234079+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:25:37.310733
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 14-7148

DONNELL FREEMAN,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

BRAD PERITT, Superintendent,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:13-hc-02016-BO)

Submitted:   November 18, 2014            Decided:   November 21, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donnell Freeman, Appellant Pro Se.    Jess D. Mekeel, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Donnell Freeman seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on 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 May 9, 2014.        The notice of appeal was filed on July 30,

2014. *   Because Freeman 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 also deny Freeman’s pending motion for consideration.                  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

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3