Pierre Renoir v. Warden

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to return to Keen Mountain [999694674-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999688337-2] Originating case number: 7:14-cv-00345-JLK-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999762959]. Mailed to: P. Renoir. [15-7612]

Appeal: 15-7612

Doc: 16

Filed: 02/26/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7612

PIERRE A. RENOIR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:14-cv-00345-JLK-RSB)

Submitted:

February 23, 2016

Decided:

February 26, 2016

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Pierre A. Renoir, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7612

Doc: 16

Filed: 02/26/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Pierre A. Renoir seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing as successive 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

30

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
July 18, 2014.
2015. *

The notice of appeal was filed on October 2,

Because Renior 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

also

deny

Renoir’s

motion

to

return

to

Keen

Mountain

Correctional Center and dispense with oral argument because the
facts

and

legal

contentions

are

*

adequately

presented

in

the

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: 15-7612

Doc: 16

materials

before

Filed: 02/26/2016

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3