Keith Goodman v. Gene Johnson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998743991-2] Originating case number: 1:11-cv-00079-GBL-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998825458]. Mailed to: Goodman. [11-7322]

Appeal: 11-7322

Document: 24

Date Filed: 04/04/2012

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7322

KEITH D. GOODMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GENE M. JOHNSON; HAROLD W. CLARKE; JOHN JABE; A. DAVID
ROBINSON;
FRED
SHILLING;
KIM
RUNION;
J.
LAFOON;
Q.
BIRCHETTE; MS. G. F. SIVELS; CASSANDRA TAYLOR; C. MAYES; C.
BAILEY; HARVARD STEPHENS, Doctor,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
G. ROBINSON; ELTON BROWN,
PRISON HEALTH SERVICES,

Doctor;

KRYM;

SPRUILL,

Doctor;

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:11-cv-00079-GBL-IDD)

Submitted:

March 27, 2012

Decided:

April 4, 2012

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith D. Goodman, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Davies Supino,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia;

Appeal: 11-7322

Document: 24

Date Filed: 04/04/2012

Page: 2 of 4

Carlene Booth Johnson, PERRY LAW FIRM, PC, Dillwyn, Virginia,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-7322

Document: 24

Date Filed: 04/04/2012

Page: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Keith D. Goodman seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders partially dismissing his complaint and denying his motion
seeking reconsideration of that dismissal.

We lack jurisdiction

to consider Goodman’s appeal of either order.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders,

and

certain

interlocutory

and

collateral

orders,

28

U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial

Indus.

Loan

Corp.,

337

U.S.

541,

545-46

(1949).

Further, a timely notice of appeal is a mandatory jurisdictional
requirement in civil cases.

See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S.

205, 214 (2007).
Here, Goodman failed to timely notice an appeal of the
district

court’s

order

partially

dismissing

his

complaint.

Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a), Goodman, barring a motion for an
extension of time or other tolling event, had thirty days to
notice an appeal from the order.

See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)-

(5).

Goodman,

seek

motion

seeking

however,

did

not

reconsideration,

filed

an

extension,

under

Fed.

R.

and

his

Civ.

P.

54(b), did not qualify to toll the thirty-day time limit. 1

1

See

Although the district court construed Goodman’s first
motion to reconsider as filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e),
this erroneous characterization does not control or alter our
analysis on appeal.

3

Appeal: 11-7322

Fed.

Document: 24

R.

App.

P.

Date Filed: 04/04/2012

4(a)(4)(A).

Page: 4 of 4

Therefore,

Goodman’s

notice

of

appeal, filed over three months after the district court’s order
of partial dismissal, was clearly untimely as to that order, and
we lack jurisdiction to consider its propriety. 2
Further, although timely appealed from, the district
court’s order denying Goodman’s motion seeking reconsideration
is

neither

a

final

collateral order.

order

nor

an

appealable

interlocutory

or

Because the district court did not otherwise

certify the order for appeal in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b),

we

lack

jurisdiction

to

consider

it.

See

Braswell

Shipyards, Inc. v. Beazer East, Inc., 2 F.3d 1331, 1336 (4th
Cir. 1993).
Accordingly,
jurisdiction
counsel.
legal
before

and

deny

we

dismiss

Goodman’s

the

appeal

pending

for

motion

lack

to

of

appoint

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

2

Even if Goodman’s notice of appeal had been timely, we
nevertheless would have lacked jurisdiction to review the order
granting partial dismissal as that order was neither final nor
an appealable interlocutory order.

4