John Burnley v. Bryan Norwood

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to strike [998695016-2] Originating case number: 3:10-cv-00264-HEH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998728050]. Mailed to: John R. Burnley. [11-1729]

Appeal: 11-1729

Document: 26

Date Filed: 11/22/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1729

JOHN RODGERS BURNLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COLONEL BRYAN T. NORWOOD, Chief of Police for the City of
Richmond;
JOHN
VENUTI,
Chief
of
Police
Virginia
Commonwealth University; HOWARD J. HICKS, Captain; WILLIAM
C. MEADOWS, Lieutenant; AMIRA SLEEM, #3076 Police Officer;
BENJAMIN TODERICO, #2614 Police Officer; UNKNOWN NAMED
POLICE OFFICERS FOR THE CITY OF RICHMOND; JOAN E. JONES;
WILLIAM P. WILSON; JEAN J. WILSON; HAZEL MILES; TYRONE M.
MILLER; MICHAEL G. MILLER; WALTER EDWARD BAKER; CITY OF
RICHMOND, MUNICIPALITY; CITY OF RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT;
ANDREW CARR,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:10-cv-00264-HEH)

Submitted:

November 17, 2011

Decided:

November 22, 2011

Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Rodgers Burnley, Appellant Pro Se.
M. Janet Palmer, CITY
ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE,
Richmond,
Virginia;
Milligan
Grinstead
Goldsmith, Jeffrey Dean McMahan, Jr., William N. Federspiel,

Appeal: 11-1729

Document: 26

Date Filed: 11/22/2011

Page: 2 of 3

Robert Michael Tyler, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-1729

Document: 26

Date Filed: 11/22/2011

Page: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
John
order

court’s

Rodgers
denying

complaint.

We

Burnley
relief

dismiss

the

seeks

on

to

his

appeal

42
for

appeal
U.S.C.
lack

the

district

§ 1983

of

(2006)

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 order was entered on the docket
on August 4, 2010.
2011.

The notice of appeal was filed on July 11,

Because Burnley failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal.

We deny Burnley’s motion to strike.

dispense

argument

with

oral

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3