Robert Jordan v. Michael Hardin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999500854-2] Originating case number: 5:13-hc-02196-F Copies to all parties and the district court. [999567748]. Mailed to: Robert Jordan. [14-7838]

Appeal: 14-7838

Doc: 13

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7838

ROBERT LEWIS JORDAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL B. HARDIN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:13-hc-02196-F)

Submitted:

April 16, 2015

Decided:

April 20, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lewis Jordan, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7838

Doc: 13

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Robert Lewis Jordan seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

dismissing

petition.

We

as

untimely

dismiss

the

his

appeal

28

U.S.C.

for

lack

§ 2254
of

(2012)

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
March 18, 2014.
2014. *

The notice of appeal was filed on December 10,

Because Jordan 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

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: 14-7838

Doc: 13

contentions

are

Filed: 04/20/2015

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3