UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7801
CASEY LUCZAK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief
District Judge. (3:15-cv-00012-GMG-JES)
Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: February 26, 2016
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Casey Luczak, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Casey Luczak seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition, denying reconsideration
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), and denying his motion for an
extension of time to file his appeal. We affirm in part and
dismiss in part.
When the United States or its officer or agency is a party,
the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after
the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 denying Luczak’s Rule 59(e)
motion was entered on the docket on June 23, 2015. Luczak filed
his motion for an extension of time to file his appeal on
September 8, 2015, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(d), which the district
court denied. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues
raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
Because Luczak’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for
the district court’s disposition of his motion for an extension
of time, Luczak has forfeited appellate review of that order.
2
Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
affirm the district court’s order denying Luczak’s motion for an
extension of time to file an appeal.
Because we affirm the district court’s order denying the
motion for an extension of time to file the appeal, we dismiss
the appeal of the dismissal and reconsideration orders as
untimely. We further deny Luczak’s motion to amend his informal
brief. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3