Henry Olsen v. Ronald Angelone
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999526900-2]. Originating case number: 7:01-cv-00310-JCT. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999589461]. Mailed to: Henry Olsen. [15-6069]
Appeal: 15-6069
Doc: 11
Filed: 05/26/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6069
HENRY CHRISTIAN OLSEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
RONALD J. ANGELONE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:01-cv-00310-JCT)
Submitted:
May 21, 2015
Decided:
May 26, 2015
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry Christian Olsen, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-6069
Doc: 11
Filed: 05/26/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Henry Christian Olsen seeks to appeal the district court’s
order
denying
his
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
60(b)
motion
for
reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
Parties
are
accorded
30
days
We dismiss the appeal.
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 entered its final order on November 13,
2014.
and
Olsen filed his notice of appeal on December 27, 2014, *
did
period.
not
obtain
an
extension
or
reopening
of
the
appeal
Accordingly, Olsen’s notice of appeal, filed more than
30 days after the denial of his Rule 60 motion to reconsider the
denial
of
relief
on
his
§
2254
petition,
was
untimely.
Accordingly, we dismiss Olsen’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
We
deny
Olsen’s
motion
for
appointment
*
of
counsel
and
we
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal, December 27, 2014, 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: 15-6069
Doc: 11
dispense
with
contentions
are
Filed: 05/26/2015
oral
argument
adequately
Pg: 3 of 3
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
and
legal
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?