Brenda Holley v. Wendy Hobb

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cv-01085-TSE-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998677210]. Mailed to: Brenda Holley. [11-6871]

Appeal: 11-6871

Document: 7

Date Filed: 09/14/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6871

BRENDA J. HOLLEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WENDY S. HOBBS,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:10-cv-01085-TSE-JFA)

Submitted:

September 13, 2011

Decided:

September 14, 2011

Before KING, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brenda J. Holley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6871

Document: 7

Date Filed: 09/14/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Brenda J. Holley seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

dismissing

her

28

U.S.C.

§

2254

(2006)

petition.

We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice
of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties in civil cases such as this one 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).
a

civil

case

“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in

is

a

jurisdictional

requirement.”

Bowles

v.

Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket
on

January

24,

2011.

The

earliest, on June 16, 2011. *

notice

of

appeal

was

filed,

at

Because Holley failed to file a

timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening
of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.
oral

argument

because

the

facts

*

and

legal

We dispense with
contentions

are

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

Appeal: 11-6871

Document: 7

adequately

Date Filed: 09/14/2011

presented

in

the

Page: 3 of 3

materials

before

the

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3