Hermenegildo Martinez v. Sandy Thomas , 589 F. App'x 208 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-7333
    HERMENEGILDO RICO MARTINEZ,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    SUPERINTENDENT L.C.I. SANDY THOMAS; THEODIS BECK,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville.   Graham C. Mullen,
    Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-00177-GCM)
    Submitted:   January 15, 2015               Decided:   January 21, 2015
    Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Hermenegildo Rico Martinez, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Babb,
    Assistant   Attorney  General,  Raleigh,  North Carolina,  for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Hermenegildo   Rico   Martinez   seeks   to     appeal   the
    district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition
    as untimely.      We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
    because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
    Parties are accorded thirty 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 June 19, 2008.      The notice of appeal was filed on September
    2, 2014. *    Because Martinez 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
    *
    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
    ,
    276 (1988).
    2
    before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-7333

Citation Numbers: 589 F. App'x 208

Judges: Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Davis

Filed Date: 1/21/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024