UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7231
JOHN LEWIS WRAY, JR.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
R. DAVID MITCHELL; BEVERLY PERDUE; ROY COOPER; FORREST
DONALD BRIDGES; RICHARD L. SHAFFER; SARAH E. KIRBY-TURNER;
COLLIN MCWHIRTER; DAVID SCHWEEPEE, II; JOHN CHURCH; PAUL
DITZ; RICHARD G. YOUT; RENITA W. MELTON; SERGEANT DAVIS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:10-cv-00298-RJC)
Submitted: October 11, 2012 Decided: October 16, 2012
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Lewis Wray, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Lewis Wray, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order construing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint
as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and dismissing it. 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 February 28, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on
July 13, 2012. * Because Wray failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period, we dismiss the appeal and deny Wray’s motion to add
documents and petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
*
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
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3