Elder Locust v. ABC Board

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999659343-2] Originating case number: 4:15-cv-00061-FL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999763947]. Mailed to: Locust. [15-1875]

Appeal: 15-1875

Doc: 39

Filed: 02/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1875

ELDER DEFORRORRA LOCUST,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ABC BOARD; BILL JOHNSON, Director, City of Kinston
Department of Public Safety; CITY OF KINSTON PUBLIC SAFETY,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (4:15-cv-00061-FL)

Submitted:

February 25, 2016

Before SHEDD and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

February 29, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elder Deforrorra Locust, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Christopher
Hart, SUMRELL, SUGG, CARMICHAEL, HICKS & HART, PA, New Bern,
North Carolina; Timothy Patrick Carraway, James P. Cauley, III,
CAULEY PRIDGEN, PA, Wilson, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1875

Doc: 39

Filed: 02/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Elder

Deforrorra

Locust

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss Locust’s
civil suit for failure to state a claim.

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
August

12,

2015.

The

September 24, 2015. *

notice

of

appeal

was

filed

on

Because Locust failed to file a timely

notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the
appeal period, we grant Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

*

because

the

facts

and

legal

For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to
the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988).
We note that Locust also filed a premature appeal on
August 4, 2015. This appeal is dismissed as interlocutory.

2

Appeal: 15-1875

Doc: 39

contentions

are

Filed: 02/29/2016

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3