Charles Tunstall-Bey v. Bryan Wells ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-7541
    CHARLES ALONZO TUNSTALL-BEY,
    Petitioner – Appellant,
    v.
    BRYAN WELLS,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (5:13-hc-02090-BO)
    Submitted:   March 17, 2015                 Decided:   March 19, 2015
    Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Charles Alonzo Tunstall, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Charles Alonzo Tunstall-Bey seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order dismissing 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 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
    November 20, 2013.      The notice of appeal was filed on September
    30, 2014. *    Because Tunstall-Bey 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
    (1988).
    2
    before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-7541

Judges: Wilkinson, King, Davis

Filed Date: 3/19/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024