Tyrone Johnson v. Roy Cooper

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7233
TYRONE JOHNSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROY COOPER,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:14-cv-00242-FDW)
Submitted: July 26, 2016 Decided: August 2, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tyrone Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tyrone Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) federal habeas
petition. We previously remanded this case to the district
court for the limited purpose of determining whether the appeal
period should be reopened pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).
See Johnson v. Cooper, 623 F. App’x 108 (4th Cir. 2015) (No. 15-
7233). On remand, the district court permitted reopening under
Rule 4(a)(6), but Johnson thereafter failed to file a notice of
appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
Parties are accorded 30 days after 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 Rule 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 31, 2015. Pursuant to its order on remand, which was
entered on February 1, 2016, the district court reopened the
appeal period for 14 days to allow Johnson to timely note an
appeal from the dispositive order. Since then, however, Johnson
has not filed anything in the district court that could be
2
construed as a notice of appeal. Because Johnson failed to file
a timely notice of appeal after he obtained a reopening of the
appeal period, and no authority permits the court to further
extend or reopen the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We
deny Johnson’s application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. 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
3