Michael King v. Frank Perry

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999797456-2], denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999790855-2] Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00294-FDW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999838690]. Mailed to: King. [16-6435]

Appeal: 16-6435

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6435

MICHAEL RAY KING,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
FRANK PERRY, Secretary,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (1:15-cv-00294-FDW)

Submitted:

May 26, 2016

Decided:

June 1, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Ray King, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6435

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Michael Ray King 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
district

are

court’s

accorded
final

30

days

judgment

or

after
order

the
to

entry

note

an

of

the

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 8, 2016.
2016. *

The notice of appeal was filed on March 9,

Because King 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,
276 (1988).

2

Appeal: 16-6435

Doc: 9

contentions

Filed: 06/01/2016

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3