Michael King v. Frank Perry, No. 16-6435 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6435 MICHAEL RAY KING, Petitioner - Appellant, v. FRANK PERRY, Secretary, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (1:15-cv-00294-FDW) Submitted: May 26, 2016 Decided: June 1, 2016 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Ray King, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Ray King seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 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 district are court’s accorded final 30 days judgment or after order the to entry note an of the 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 January 8, 2016. 2016. * The notice of appeal was filed on March 9, Because King 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 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, 276 (1988). 2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
