Tyrone Johnson v. Roy Cooper, No. 15-7233 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on November 24, 2015.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7233 TYRONE JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ROY COOPER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:14-cv-00242-FDW) Submitted: July 26, 2016 Decided: August 2, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Johnson, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Tyrone Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) federal habeas petition. We previously remanded this case to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether the appeal period should be reopened pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). See Johnson v. Cooper, 623 F. App’x 108 (4th Cir. 2015) (No. 157233). On remand, the district court permitted reopening under Rule 4(a)(6), but Johnson thereafter failed to file a notice of appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Parties are accorded 30 days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), period under unless Fed. R. the App. period under Rule 4(a)(6). district P. court 4(a)(5) or extends the appeal reopens the appeal “[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 March 31, 2015. Pursuant to its order on remand, which was entered on February 1, 2016, the district court reopened the appeal period for 14 days to allow Johnson to timely note an appeal from the dispositive order. has not filed anything in the 2 Since then, however, Johnson district court that could be construed as a notice of appeal. Because Johnson failed to file a timely notice of appeal after he obtained a reopening of the appeal period, and no authority permits the court to further extend or reopen the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. deny Johnson’s pauperis. legal before application for leave to proceed in We forma We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
