James Daye v. John Herring
James Daye v. John Herring
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6776
JAMES STANLEY DAYE, a/k/a James A. Daye,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOHN HERRING,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:17-cv-00385-FDW)
Submitted: November 29, 2018 Decided: February 7, 2019
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Stanley Daye, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
James Stanley Daye 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 March 29, 2018. The
notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on June 19, 2018. See Houston v. Lack,
487 U.S. 266(1988). Because Daye failed to file a timely notice of appeal or 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
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished