Gaetan Lecompt v. Frank Perry

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000132312-2] Originating case number: 1:17-cv-00068-CCE-JLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000166684].. [17-6811]

Appeal: 17-6811

Doc: 11

Filed: 10/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6811

GAETAN H. LECOMPT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
FRANK L. PERRY
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00068-CCE-JLW)

Submitted: September 28, 2017

Decided: October 3, 2017

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gaetan H. Lecompt, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6811

Doc: 11

Filed: 10/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Gaetan H. Lecompt seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely 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 11, 2017. The notice
of appeal was filed on June 22, 2017. * Because Lecompt 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