Garry Sanders v. State of North Carolina

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999687127-2] Originating case number: 5:14-hc-02089-D. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999761979]. Mailed to: Garry Sanders. [15-7641]

Appeal: 15-7641

Doc: 10

Filed: 02/25/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7641

GARRY SANDERS,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; JOSEPH LUZZI, Attorney,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:14-hc-02089-D)

Submitted:

February 17, 2016

Before KING and
Circuit Judge.

GREGORY,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

February 25, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Garry Sanders, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7641

Doc: 10

Filed: 02/25/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Garry Sanders seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing

his

28

U.S.C.

§ 2254

subject matter jurisdiction.

(2012)

petition

for

lack

of

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
January 28, 2015.
2015. *

The notice of appeal was filed on October 13,

Because Sanders failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal.

*

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: 15-7641

Doc: 10

Filed: 02/25/2016

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

3