John Simmons v. Ennis Oate
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999389725-2] Originating case number: 5:12-hc-02180-FL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999462100]. Mailed to: Simmons. [14-6863]
Appeal: 14-6863
Doc: 9
Filed: 10/24/2014
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6863
JOHN WAYNE SIMMONS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ENNIS OATES,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:12-hc-02180-FL)
Submitted:
October 21, 2014
Decided:
October 24, 2014
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Wayne Simmons, Appellant Pro Se.
Mary Carla Babb,
Assistant
Attorney
General,
Raleigh,
North
Carolina,
for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-6863
Doc: 9
Filed: 10/24/2014
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
John
Wayne
Simmons
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 September 17, 2013.
30, 2014. *
The notice of appeal was filed on May
Because Simmons 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.
because
order
We further note that the appeal is duplicative
Simmons
denying
has
his
§
previously
2254
appealed
petition.
*
the
We
district
dispense
court’s
with
oral
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: 14-6863
Doc: 9
Filed: 10/24/2014
Pg: 3 of 3
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?