John Hargrove v. Jacob Fuller

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:08-cv-00132-IMK-JSK Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998824558]. Mailed to: John Hargrove. [10-6604]

Appeal: 10-6604

Document: 36

Date Filed: 04/03/2012

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6604

JOHN E. HARGROVE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JACOB FULLER; NURSE ERIN; NURSE JESSICA; DR. JOE; KING, C/O;
DR. EDWARDS; DR. JAMES; MILLER, C/O,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
PRIME CARE MEDICAL
CHAD; RUDLOFF,

INCORPORATED;

EASTERN

REGIONAL

JAIL;

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:08-cv-00132-IMK-JSK)

Submitted:

March 19, 2012

Decided:

April 3, 2012

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John E. Hargrove, Appellant Pro Se.
John Dorsey Hoffman,
FLAHERTY, SENSABAUGH & BONASSO, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia;
Philip Cameron Petty, ROSE PADDEN & PETTY, LC, Fairmont, West
Virginia; Chad Marlo Cardinal, Charleston, West Virginia;

Appeal: 10-6604

Document: 36

Date Filed: 04/03/2012

Frederick W. Goundry,
Maryland, for Appellees.

III,

VARNER

Page: 2 of 4

&

GOUNDRY,

Frederick,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 10-6604

Document: 36

Date Filed: 04/03/2012

Page: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
John E. Hargrove seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
and dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)
complaint.

Following two limited remands to the district court

to address the timeliness of Hargrove’s notice of appeal, 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 amended judgment was entered on
the docket on February 10, 2010.

The notice of appeal was

filed, at the earliest, on April 12, 2010. *
failed

to

extension

file
or

a

timely

reopening

of

notice
the

of

appeal

*

appeal

Because Hargrove
or

period,

to
we

obtain

dismiss

an
the

For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the envelope in which Hargrove mailed the notice of
appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly
delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R.
App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

3

Appeal: 10-6604

Document: 36

appeal.
legal
before

Date Filed: 04/03/2012

Page: 4 of 4

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
DISMISSED

4