Hermenegildo Martinez v. Sandy Thoma
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999463194-2] Originating case number: 1:08-cv-00177-GCM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999514097].. [14-7333]
Appeal: 14-7333
Doc: 8
Filed: 01/21/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7333
HERMENEGILDO RICO MARTINEZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT L.C.I. SANDY THOMAS; THEODIS BECK,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-00177-GCM)
Submitted:
January 15, 2015
Decided:
January 21, 2015
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hermenegildo Rico Martinez, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Babb,
Assistant
Attorney
General,
Raleigh,
North
Carolina,
for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-7333
Doc: 8
Filed: 01/21/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Hermenegildo
Rico
Martinez
seeks
to
appeal
the
district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition
as untimely.
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 June 19, 2008.
2, 2014. *
The notice of appeal was filed on September
Because Martinez 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: 14-7333
before
Doc: 8
this
Filed: 01/21/2015
court
and
Pg: 3 of 3
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?