Stacey Jones v. State of Maryland , 675 F. App'x 359 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-7366
    STACEY JONES,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF MARYLAND,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:16-
    cv-01624-PWG)
    Submitted:   January 31, 2017             Decided:   February 3, 2017
    Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Stacey Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Stacey Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    construing      his     petition   filed       pursuant   to    
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
    (2012) as a 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2012) petition and dismissing it
    as untimely.          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
    August 4, 2016.         The notice of appeal was filed on September 30,
    2016. *    Because Jones failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
    to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
    dismiss the appeal.          We dispense with oral argument because the
    facts     and   legal    contentions      are    adequately     presented     in   the
    *We assume, for the purpose of this appeal, 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
    materials   before   this   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-7366

Citation Numbers: 675 F. App'x 359

Judges: Wilkinson, Keenan, Thacker

Filed Date: 2/3/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024