Marshall Locklear, Jr. v. State of North Carolina

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998277908-2] Originating case number: 1:07-cv-00682-RAE Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998415167] [09-8232]

Marshall Locklear, Jr. v. State of North Carolina

Doc. 0

Case: 09-8232 Document: 18

Date Filed: 08/31/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8232 MARSHALL LOCKLEAR, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; ALEXANDRA MARINA HIGHTOWER; THEODIS BECK, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:07-cv-00682-RAE) Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: August 31, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marshall Locklear, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III; Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorneys General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-8232 Document: 18

Date Filed: 08/31/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Marshall Locklear, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court's order We denying dismiss relief the on his 28 for U.S.C. lack of § 2254 (2006)

petition.

appeal

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 September 24, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on

December 11, 2009.

Because Locklear 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. appoint counsel. facts

We also deny Locklear's pending motion to We dispense with oral argument because the

and

legal

contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

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

Case: 09-8232 Document: 18

Date Filed: 08/31/2010

Page: 3

materials

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process. DISMISSED

3