Casey Luczak v. Terry O'Brien

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to amend informal brief [999737603-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999712644-2]. Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00012-GMG-JES. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999763023]. Mailed to: Casey Luczak. [15-7801]

Appeal: 15-7801

Doc: 9

Filed: 02/26/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7801

CASEY LUCZAK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief
District Judge. (3:15-cv-00012-GMG-JES)

Submitted:

February 23, 2016

Decided:

February 26, 2016

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

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Casey Luczak, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7801

Doc: 9

Filed: 02/26/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Casey Luczak seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition, denying reconsideration
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), and denying his motion for an
extension of time to file his appeal.

We affirm in part and

dismiss in part.
When the United States or its officer or agency is a party,
the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after
the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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.”
The

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

district

court’s

order

denying

Luczak’s

motion was entered on the docket on June 23, 2015.
his

motion

for

an

extension

of

time

to

file

Rule

59(e)

Luczak filed

his

appeal

on

September 8, 2015, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(d), which the district
court denied.
raised

in

the

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues
Appellant’s

brief.

See

4th

Cir.

R.

34(b).

Because Luczak’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for
the district court’s disposition of his motion for an extension
of time, Luczak has forfeited appellate review of that order.
2

Appeal: 15-7801

Doc: 9

Filed: 02/26/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
affirm the district court’s order denying Luczak’s motion for an
extension of time to file an appeal.
Because we affirm the district court’s order denying the
motion for an extension of time to file the appeal, we dismiss
the

appeal

untimely.
brief.
legal
before

of

the

dismissal

and

reconsideration

orders

as

We further deny Luczak’s motion to amend his informal
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

3