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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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