Wendell Pixley v. Jeffrey Pleasant

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000034241-2] Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00416-REP-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000055431]. Mailed to: Jeffrey A. Pleasant. [16-7626]

Appeal: 16-7626

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/04/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7626

JEFFREY A. PLEASANT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WENDELL W. PIXLEY, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:16-cv-00416-REP-RCY)

Submitted:

March 30, 2017

Decided:

April 4, 2017

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7626

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/04/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey A. Pleasant seeks to appeal the district court’s
order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition as a 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it as successive.
We

dismiss

the

appeal

for

lack

of

jurisdiction

because

Pleasant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.
In civil actions in which the federal government is not a
party,

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
September 15, 2016.
10,

2016.

Pleasant

The notice of appeal was filed on November

Although
that

he

the

had

district

60

court

days

appeal,

to

erroneously
the

informed

jurisdictional

nature of the filing requirement and Pleasant’s failure to file
a timely notice of appeal deprive this court of jurisdiction.
See

id.

at

equitable
Accordingly,

214

(“[T]his

exceptions
we

deny

dismiss the appeal.

to
leave

Court

has

no

authority

jurisdictional
to

proceed

in

to

create

requirements.”).
forma

pauperis

and

We dispense with oral argument because the
2

Appeal: 16-7626

facts

Doc: 10

and

materials

legal
before

Filed: 04/04/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3