Daniel Thomas Lanahan v. Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center; Dr. Khlid El Sayed; Dr. Kowan; Dr. Doctor Helsel

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6948
DANIEL THOMAS LANAHAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CLIFTON T. PERKINS HOSPITAL CENTER; DR. KHLID EL SAYED;
DR. KOWAN; DR. DOCTOR HELSEL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:15-cv-02512-JFM)
Submitted: February 13, 2017 Decided: March 14, 2017
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Thomas Lanahan seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition without
prejudice for lack of exhaustion. 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). “Lack of notice of
the entry does not affect the time for appeal or relieve or
authorize the court to relieve a party for failing to appeal
within the time allowed, except as allowed by Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure (4)(a).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 77(d)(2).
Rule 4(a)(6) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
permits the reopening of the appeal period if a party has not
received notice of the judgment or order within 21 days after
entry, but the motion requesting such relief must be filed
within 180 days after entry of the judgment or 14 days after the
party received notice of the judgment or order, whichever is
earlier. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time requirements of
Rule 4(a) are mandatory and jurisdictional. Bowles v. Russell,
551 U.S. 205, 208-14 (2007).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on
October 30, 2015. Lanahan’s notice of appeal was filed, at the
earliest, on July 1, 2016. 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). Lanahan never moved for an extension of
the appeal period. Additionally, the 180-day reopening period
expired well before Lanahan filed his notice of appeal. Thus,
Lanahan is not eligible for a reopening of the appeal period.
See Nunley v. City of Los Angeles, 52 F.3d 792, 794-95 (9th Cir.
1995); Hensley v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 651 F.2d 226, 228
(4th Cir. 1981).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Lanahan’s
motion for a hearing and dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --