Aaron Doxie, III v. Jeffrey Dillman

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6263 AARON DOXIE, III, a/k/a Aharon Azaryah Nearyah Hakahan, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN JEFFREY N. DILLMAN, Warden; DIRECTOR HAROLD CLARKE, Director, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:13-cv-00505-AWA-DEM) Submitted: May 29, 2014 Decided: June 3, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aaron Doxie, III, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Aaron Doxie, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive. 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 26, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed on January 23, 2014. * Because Doxie 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