Kenneth William Ray, II v. Joe Driver et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cv-00009-JPB-JSK Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998790194]. Mailed to: Kenneth William Ray II. [11-6164]

Appeal: 11-6164

Document: 19

Date Filed: 02/16/2012

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6164

KENNETH WILLIAM RAY, II,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
JOE DRIVER, Rec Officer; HAROLD
FUSEYAMORE, Regional Counsel,

BOYLES;

MICHELLE

T.

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins.
John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (2:10-cv-00009-JPB-JSK)

Submitted:

February 8, 2012

Decided:

February 16, 2012

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth William Ray, II, Appellant Pro Se. Alan McGonigal,
Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6164

Document: 19

Date Filed: 02/16/2012

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Kenneth William Ray, II, seeks to appeal the district
court’s

order

adopting

recommendation.

the

magistrate

judge’s

report

and

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction

because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
When the United States or its officer or agency is a
party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty
days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or
order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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).
timely

filing

of

a

notice

jurisdictional requirement.”

of

appeal

in

a

civil

case

“[T]he
is

a

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205,

214 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket
on November 17, 2010.
January 31, 2011.

The notice of appeal was deemed filed on

Because Ray 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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

DISMISSED
2