Brian Blakeman v. Joe Solana

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999764426-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999766611-2]. Originating case number: 5:15-hc-02096-D. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999804462]. Mailed to: Brian Blakeman. [16-6109]

Appeal: 16-6109

Doc: 12

Filed: 04/26/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6109

BRIAN M. BLAKEMAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOE SOLANA, Superintendent,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief
District Judge. (5:15-hc-02096-D)

Submitted:

April 21, 2016

Decided:

April 26, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian M. Blakeman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6109

Doc: 12

Filed: 04/26/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Brian M. Blakeman seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing as untimely 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
October 5, 2015.
2015. *

The notice of appeal was filed on December 29,

Because Blakeman 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, deny his motion for
appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

because

the

facts

*

and

legal

are

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: 16-6109

Doc: 12

adequately

Filed: 04/26/2016

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3