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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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?