Daniel Lanahan v. Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center, No. 16-6890 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6890 DANIEL THOMAS LANAHAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARDEN, Clifton T. Perkins Howard County Court, Hospital Center; MRS. BRACY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-00824-JFM) Submitted: August 25, 2016 Decided: August 30, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel Thomas Lanahan, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daniel Thomas Lanahan seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petitions 1 without prejudice for lack of exhaustion. 2 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 May 6, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on June 30, 2016. 3 1 The district court construed Lanahan’s civil complaint and two petitions as seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 2 Generally, dismissals without prejudice are not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). However, because the defect identified in Lanahan’s case — failure to exhaust his state remedies — must be cured by something more than an amendment to his petitions, we conclude that the district court’s order is appealable. Id. 3 For the purpose of this appeal, we rely on the postmark date appearing on the envelope containing the undated notice of appeal in light of Lanahan’s confinement in a Maryland institution responsible for evaluating the competency of (Continued) 2 Because Lanahan failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension dismiss the appeal. facts and materials legal before or reopening of the appeal period, we We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED defendants to stand trial. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926-27 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that the mailbox rule embodied in Rule 4(c) “applies broadly to any inmate confined in an institution” and that there are “no express limitation[s] of the rule’s application to prisoners, or to penal institutions” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 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.
