UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6069
HENRY CHRISTIAN OLSEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
RONALD J. ANGELONE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:01-cv-00310-JCT)
Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: May 26, 2015
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry Christian Olsen, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Henry Christian Olsen seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We dismiss the appeal.
Parties are accorded 30 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 entered its final order on November 13,
2014. Olsen filed his notice of appeal on December 27, 2014, *
and did not obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period. Accordingly, Olsen’s notice of appeal, filed more than
30 days after the denial of his Rule 60 motion to reconsider the
denial of relief on his § 2254 petition, was untimely.
Accordingly, we dismiss Olsen’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
We deny Olsen’s motion for appointment of counsel and we
*
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal, December 27, 2014, 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, 276 (1988).
2
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