Lawrence Leo Hawkins v. Robert McCabe
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999286674-2] Originating case number: 2:13-cv-00195-RBS-LRL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999364673]. Mailed to: Hawkins. [14-6095]
Appeal: 14-6095
Doc: 14
Filed: 05/29/2014
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6095
LAWRENCE LEO HAWKINS, a/k/a Lawrence’ Leo’ Hawkins, Jr-El,
a/k/a UCCI-308, a/k/a UCCI-3083, a/k/a UCCI-103, a/k/a
UCC9-105, a/k/a UCCI-207,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT MCCABE, Sheriff; DAVID L. SIMMONS, Superintendent;
JAMES RODATUS, Magistrate; WILLIAM C. SMITH; CARL EASON;
WESTBROOK PARKER; JUDGE BAGNALL; ALL PARTIES LISTED WITHIN
THE ATTACHMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TOO…; LAWRENCE
LEONARD; ARENDA WRIGHT ALLEN; TOMMY MILLER; DOUGLAS MILLER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:13-cv-00195-RBS-LRL)
Submitted:
May 19, 2014
Decided:
May 29, 2014
Before AGEE, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence Leo Hawkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-6095
Doc: 14
Filed: 05/29/2014
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence
Leo
Hawkins,
Jr.,
seeks
to
appeal
the
district court’s order dismissing his complaint, filed pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents
of
Fed.
Bureau
of
Narcotics,
403
U.S.
388
(1971).
Hawkins has also filed a motion for transcript at government
expense.
We deny Hawkins’ motion 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).
When the United
States or its officer or agency is a party, and unless the
district court extends or reopens the appeal period, the notice
of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry
of the district court’s final judgment or order.
P. 4(a)(1)(B).
Fed. R. App.
“[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 dismissal order was entered onto
the docket on May 30, 2013.
Hawkins did not file his notice of
2
Appeal: 14-6095
Doc: 14
Filed: 05/29/2014
Pg: 3 of 3
appeal of that order until 194 days later, on December 10, 2013. *
Therefore,
Hawkins’
under
notice
either
of
the
appeal
30-day
is
or
60-day
clearly
appeal
untimely.
period,
Moreover,
Hawkins filed his notice of appeal beyond the time limits for
seeking an extension or reopening of the appeal period.
See
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) (motion for an extension of the appeal
period must be filed within thirty days of entry); Fed. R. App.
P.
4(a)(6)
earlier
of
(motion
180
for
days
reopening
after
must
judgment
be
is
filed
within
entered,
or
the
within
fourteen days after the moving party receives notice of entry);
see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 77(d) (“Lack of notice of the entry
does not affect the time for appeal or relieve . . . a party for
failing to appeal within the time allowed, except as allowed by
[Fed. R. App. P.] 4(a).”).
Because
Hawkins’
appeal
jurisdiction over the appeal.
motion
for
appeal.
legal
before
transcript
at
is
untimely,
we
lack
Accordingly, we deny Hawkins’
government
expense
and
dismiss
the
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
DISMISSED
*
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?