UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7624
DWIGHT WHITE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT G. JONES,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. L. Patrick Auld,
Magistrate Judge. (1:11-cv-00773-LPA-LPA)
Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dwight White, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Dwight White seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 1 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 magistrate judge’s order was entered on the docket
on April 30, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on October
21, 2014. 2 Because White 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
1
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).
2
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
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3