Herman White v. Department of Correction

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion to proceed in forma pauperis denied (FRAP 24) [999930910-2]. Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00159-JAG-RCY. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999975426]. Mailed to: Herman White. [16-7092]

Appeal: 16-7092

Doc: 9

Filed: 11/28/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7092

HERMAN WHITE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:16-cv-00159-JAG-RCY)

Submitted:

November 22, 2016

Before DIAZ and
Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

November 28, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Herman White, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7092

Doc: 9

Filed: 11/28/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Herman White seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his challenge to his state conviction for failing to
complete
order.

and

file

the

standardized

forms

directed

by

court

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
June 8, 2016.
2016.

The notice of appeal was filed on August 12,

Because White 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

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2