Gary Miller-El v. Alvin Keller

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998866538-2]. Originating case number: 5:11-hc-02150-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998920657]. Mailed to: Gary Miller-El. [12-6916]

Appeal: 12-6916

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/21/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6916

GARY L. MILLER-EL,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
ALVIN KELLER,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:11-hc-02150-BO)

Submitted:

August 16, 2012

Decided:

August 21, 2012

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Lewis Miller-El, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6916

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/21/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Gary
court’s

Lewis

order

petition.

Miller-El

dismissing

We

dismiss

seeks

without
the

to

appeal

prejudice

appeal

for

his

lack

of

the

district

habeas

corpus

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 19, 2011.
2012. *

Because

The notice of appeal was filed on May 6,

Miller-El

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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials

*

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

Appeal: 12-6916

before

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/21/2012

the

and

court

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3