Ronnie Clarke v. Petersburg City Public School

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999410786-2]. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00239-REP. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999480674]. Mailed to: Ronnie Clarke. [14-1783]

Appeal: 14-1783

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/24/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1783

RONNIE CLARKE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PETERSBURG CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00239-REP)

Submitted:

November 20, 2014

Decided:

November 24, 2014

Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnie Clarke, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1783

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/24/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ronnie

Clarke

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

Clarke

filed the motion along with a complaint alleging that Defendant
Petersburg

City

Public

Schools

discriminated

and

retaliated

against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012).
has also moved to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

Clarke
We deny

Clarke’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and 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).

Furthermore, “[a] bare notice of appeal should not be construed
as

a

motion

for

extension

of

additional time is manifest.”

time,

where

no

request

for

Shah v. Hutto, 722 F.2d 1167,

1168-69 (4th Cir. 1983) (en banc).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket
on July 1, 2014.

The notice of appeal was filed on August 5,
2

Appeal: 14-1783

2014.

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/24/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

Clarke failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain

an extension or reopening of the appeal period.
deny

Clarke’s

application

dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

to

proceed

in

Accordingly, we

forma

pauperis

and

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3