Roger Earl Coley v. Frank Perry

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-01422-TDS-JLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000091443]. Mailed to: Roger Earl Coley ALBEMARLE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 460 Badin, NC 28009. [17-6260]

Appeal: 17-6260

Doc: 9

Filed: 05/31/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6260

ROGER EARL COLEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
FRANK PERRY,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:16-cv-01422-TDS-JLW)

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger Earl Coley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Decided: May 31, 2017

Appeal: 17-6260

Doc: 9

Filed: 05/31/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Roger Earl Coley seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his action as
a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and dismissing it without prejudice. 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 January 18, 2017. Coley’s
notice of appeal was deposited in the prison’s internal mailing system at the earliest on
February 22, 2017. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108
S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). Because Coley failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

2