UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6686
CHARLES A. RIPPY-BEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00058-CCE-LPA)
Submitted: January 10, 2014 Decided: January 16, 2014
Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles A. Rippy-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles A. Rippy-Bey seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and
dismissing his “Legal Notice Proclamation of Status and
Jurisdiction,” which the district court construed as a 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 March 20, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed on April 25,
2013. ∗ Because Rippy-Bey failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
∗
In a previous opinion, we remanded this case for the
limited purpose of determining when Rippy-Bey delivered the
notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing to the district
court. Rippy-Bey v. North Carolina, __ F. App’x __, 2013 WL
3889201 (4th Cir. July 30, 2013). The court found that the
delivery occurred on April 25, 2013, which is considered the
filing date. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.
266 (1988).
2
period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss
the appeal. We dismiss Rippy-Bey’s pending mandamus petitions.
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