James Travis v. Warden

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:15-cv-02733-TDC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000145804]. Mailed to: James Travis. [17-6735]

Appeal: 17-6735

Doc: 8

Filed: 08/29/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6735

JAMES TRAVIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:15-cv-02733-TDC)

Submitted: August 24, 2017

Decided: August 29, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Travis, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6735

Doc: 8

Filed: 08/29/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
James Travis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 petition. 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 April 28, 2017. Travis
deposited his notice of appeal in the prison’s internal mailing system at the earliest on
May 31, 2017. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
Because Travis 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