Alexander Bannerman v. Warden J. M. Stouffer

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000123759-2]. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00042-JFM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000145528]. Mailed to: Alexander Bannerman. [17-6809]

Appeal: 17-6809

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/29/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6809

ALEXANDER BANNERMAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN J. M. STOUFFER; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-00042-JFM)

Submitted: August 24, 2017

Decided: August 29, 2017

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander Bannerman, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6809

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/29/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Alexander Bannerman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 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 May 12, 2017. The notice
of appeal was filed on June 13, 2017. * Because Bannerman 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 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

*

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 (1988).

2