Arthur Rodgers v. Bobby Shearidin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to consolidate case (Local Rule 12(b)) [998714603-2] Originating case number: 1:09-cv-01962-CCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998786630]. Mailed to: Rodgers. [11-7138]

Appeal: 11-7138

Document: 12

Date Filed: 02/13/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7138

ARTHUR RODGERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BOBBY SHEARIN, Warden,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:09-cv-01962-CCB)

Submitted:

February 9, 2012

Decided:

February 13, 2012

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Rodgers, Appellant Pro Se.
Sarah Whynne Finnegan Rice,
Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7138

Document: 12

Date Filed: 02/13/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Arthur Rodgers, a Maryland inmate, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying his motions for injunctive and
other relief and the appointment of counsel.

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 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).
of

appeal

in

a

civil

case

“[T]he timely filing of a notice

is

a

jurisdictional

requirement.”

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s order denying injunctive relief
was entered on the docket on June 8, 2011.
was filed on August 21, 2011. *

The notice of appeal

Because Rodgers 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 as moot

the pending motion to consolidate this case with appeal number
11-7359,

which

has

been

dismissed.

*

We

dispense

with

oral

For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
indicated in the certificate of service is the date the notice
of appeal was delivered to prison officials for mailing to the
court.
Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988).

2

Appeal: 11-7138

Document: 12

Date Filed: 02/13/2012

Page: 3 of 3

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

3