Michael King v. Frank Perry
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: King. [16-6435]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL RAY KING,
Petitioner - Appellant,
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)
May 26, 2016
June 1, 2016
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Ray King, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Michael Ray King seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
notice of appeal was not timely filed.
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).
filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on
January 8, 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.
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,
Pg: 3 of 3
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?