Chester Lilley v. Unnamed Respondent
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999983100-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999990856-2], denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999980534-2] Originating case number: 5:16-hc-02036-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Chester Lambert Lilley Jr. ALEXANDER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 633 Old Landfill Road Taylorsville, NC 28681-0000. [16-7585]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Petitioner - Appellant,
UNNAMED RESPONDENT; CENTRAL PRISON HOSP.,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:16-hc-02036-D)
January 17, 2017
January 20, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Chester Lambert Lilley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Chester Lambert Lilley, Jr. seeks to appeal the district
court’s order and judgment dismissing Lilley’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
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).
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
October 3, 2016.
The notice of appeal was filed on November 9,
Because Lilley 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 Lilley’s motions
for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal.
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 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
Pg: 3 of 3
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?