Catherine Randolph v. Superintendent ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6917
CATHERINE D. RANDOLPH,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:11-cv-00688-JFM)
Submitted: December 22, 2011 Decided: January 5, 2012
Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Catherine D. Randolph, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen A. Ellis,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Catherine D. Randolph seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 &
Supp. 2011) 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 May 26, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on July 6,
2011. Because Randolph failed to file a timely notice of appeal
or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and
deny Randolph’s motion to expedite the appeal as moot. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2