Daryl Gibson v. Corning Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-cv-00105-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999650569]. Mailed to: appellant. [15-1624]

Appeal: 15-1624

Doc: 20

Filed: 08/31/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1624

DARYL K. GIBSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CORNING INC.; MARIO SCARLETTO; BILL KERNS; KEITH HOWEL; JIM
ENOS; CADENA MCPEARSON; ANNIA M. ALLGRETTO; LARRY SUTTON,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:14-cv-00105-BO)

Submitted:

August 27, 2015

Decided:

August 31, 2015

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daryl K. Gibson, Appellant Pro Se.
Terry Allen Clark, Robin
Elizabeth Shea, CONSTANGY, BROOKS & SMITH, LLC, Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1624

Doc: 20

Filed: 08/31/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Daryl

K.

Gibson

seeks

judgment in his civil action.

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

We dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties
district

are

court’s

accorded
final

30

days

judgment

or

after
order

the
to

entry

note

of

an

the

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).

The district court’s judgment was entered on the docket on
April 14, 2015.

The notice of appeal was filed on June 8, 2015.

Because Gibson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain

an

extension

dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

or

reopening

of

the

appeal

period,

we

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

2