James Hawkins, Jr. v. Keith Davi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999734710-2] Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00145-JRS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999802718]. Mailed to: James Hawkins, Jr.. [15-7735]

Appeal: 15-7735

Doc: 15

Filed: 04/25/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7735

JAMES WILLIE HAWKINS, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
KEITH W. DAVIS,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, Senior
District Judge. (3:15-cv-00145-JRS)

Submitted:

April 5, 2016

Decided:

April 25, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Willie Hawkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Victoria Lee
Johnson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7735

Doc: 15

Filed: 04/25/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
James Willie Hawkins, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing 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
June 10, 2015.

The notice of appeal was filed on October 22,

2015. * Because Hawkins 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: 15-7735

Doc: 15

contentions

are

Filed: 04/25/2016

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3