David Felton v. L. Stevenson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999303672-2] Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00960-JAB-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999364588]. Mailed to: Felton. [14-6061]

Appeal: 14-6061

Doc: 13

Filed: 05/29/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6061

DAVID FELTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
L. V. STEVENSON,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00960-JAB-LPA)

Submitted:

May 22, 2014

Before TRAXLER,
Circuit Judges.

Chief

Decided: May 29, 2014

Judge,

and

HAMILTON

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Felton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6061

Doc: 13

Filed: 05/29/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
David
order

Felton

construing

seeks

his

Fed.

to
R.

appeal
Civ.

P.

the

district

60(b)

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.

court’s

motion

as

a

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

November

18,

2013.

December 25, 2013. *

The

notice

of

appeal

was

filed

on

Because Felton 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.
facts

and

legal

We dispense with oral argument because the

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

Appeal: 14-6061

Doc: 13

materials

before

Filed: 05/29/2014

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3