Don McKinney v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying as moot Motion to participate in oral argument [999671424-2]. Originating case number: 2:15-cv-00013-JPJ-PMS. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999722103]. Mailed to: Don McKinney. [15-1868]

Appeal: 15-1868

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/21/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1868

DON W. MCKINNEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap.
James P. Jones,
District Judge. (2:15-cv-00013-JPJ-PMS)

Submitted:

December 17, 2015

Decided:

December 21, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Don W. McKinney, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1868

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/21/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Don W. McKinney seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.

We dismiss

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

are

accorded

30

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).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on
June 29, 2015.
2015.

The notice of appeal was filed on August 3,

Because McKinney failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal and deny as moot his motion to participate in
oral argument.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

2