Richard DeBlois v. Gregg Hershberger, No. 11-6267 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6267 RICHARD DEBLOIS, Petitioner Appellant, v. GREGG L. HERSHBERGER, Warden, RCI; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Douglas F. Gansler, Respondents Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:10-cv-01156-CCB) Submitted: May 25, 2011 Decided: June 3, 2011 Before KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard DeBlois, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Richard DeBlois seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (2006) petition. 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 October 21, 2010. January 13, 2011. * The notice of appeal is deemed filed on Because DeBlois failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately * DeBlois states in this court that he gave his notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing on February 24, 2011. That date is clearly erroneous, as this court received the appeal on January 18, 2011. For the purpose of this appeal, we give DeBlois the benefit of the earlier dated stamped on the notice by prison officials: January 13, 2011. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 2 presented in the materials before the 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.
