UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6334
BRANDON MICHAEL PICKENS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRAD PERRITT,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (1:13-cv-00277-FDW)
Submitted: May 29, 2014 Decided: June 10, 2014
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brandon Michael Pickens, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Brandon Michael Pickens seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition
for a writ of habeas corpus. 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 December 19, 2013. Pickens subsequently filed his notice of
appeal on February 18, 2014. * Because Pickens failed to file a
timely notice of appeal and the district court denied Pickens’
motion for an extension of the appeal period, finding that he
did not demonstrate good cause or excusable neglect as required
by Rule 4(a)(5), we dismiss the appeal. Further, we deny leave
to proceed in forma pauperis and deny Pickens’ motion for a
*
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
certificate of appealability. 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