Daniel Thomas Lanahan v. WARDEN, Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center; MRS. BRACY, Howard County Court

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6890
DANIEL THOMAS LANAHAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center; MRS. BRACY,
Howard County Court,
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 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) petitions1 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 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). “[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 of 3 --

3
Because Lanahan 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 presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not 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 of 3 --