Burnice Hinnant, Jr. v. State of North Carolina , 678 F. App'x 158 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-7073
    BURNICE ANTWON HINNANT, JR.,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Louise W. Flanagan,
    District Judge. (5:15-hc-02283-FL)
    Submitted:   February 27, 2017            Decided:   March 2, 2017
    Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Burnice Antwon Hinnant, Jr., 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Burnice Antwon Hinnant, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
    court’s       order      granting    summary      judgment     for      respondent     on
    Hinnant’s         
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
         (2012)    petition.         We   dismiss   the
    appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was
    not timely filed.
    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’s order was entered on the docket on
    June 27, 2016.           The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest,
    on August 5, 2016. *             Because Hinnant 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       and   legal      contentions    are     adequately    presented     in    the
    *
    The district court found that August 5, 2016, is the
    earliest date the notice of appeal 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
    materials   before   this   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-7073

Citation Numbers: 678 F. App'x 158

Filed Date: 3/2/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023