Eddie Taylor v. Dennis Daniel

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999557382-2]. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00079-FDW. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999588719]. Mailed to: Eddie Taylor. [15-6361]

Appeal: 15-6361

Doc: 8

Filed: 05/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6361

EDDIE LEVORD TAYLOR,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DENNIS DANIELS,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:14-cv-00079-FDW)

Submitted:

May 19, 2015

Decided: May 22, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eddie Levord Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.
Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6361

Doc: 8

Filed: 05/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Eddie Levord Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying 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 in a civil action in which the United States is not
a party 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).
notice

of

appeal

requirement.”

in

a

civil

“[T]he timely filing of a

case

is

a

jurisdictional

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on
August

15,

2014.

The

notice

earliest, on March 9, 2015. 1

of

appeal

was

filed,

at

the

Because Taylor failed to file a

timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening
of the appeal period, 2 we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis

1

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

Even if Taylor’s untimely notice of appeal were construed
as a motion to reopen the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(6), we
conclude that such a motion could not be granted because Taylor
(Continued)
2

Appeal: 15-6361

Doc: 8

Filed: 05/22/2015

and dismiss the appeal.

Pg: 3 of 3

We dispense with oral 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

filed his notice of appeal 19 days after receiving notice of the
court’s judgment, which was beyond the 14-day period provided in
Rule 4(a)(6)(B). See Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605, 610
(2010) (stating that “expiration of a jurisdictional deadline
prevents the court from . . . extend[ing] that deadline”);
Hensley v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 651 F.2d 226, 228 (4th
Cir. 1981) (noting expiration of time limits in Rule 4 deprives
court of jurisdiction).

3