John Stritzinger v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for leave to file [999667268-2] Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00658-TLW. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999719982]. [15-2004]

Appeal: 15-2004

Doc: 17

Filed: 12/17/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2004

JOHN S. STRITZINGER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; STATE OF TEXAS; DR. VYAS, Eastern
States Hospital; DR. FRANCES TUNNEY, Charleston SC - Doctor;
PATRICK D. BLAKE, Wilcox Savage - Norfolk Verizon Outside
Counsel; JUDGE HANSEN, 2nd Judicial Circuit of Virginia;
JUDGE WOOLARD, 2nd Judicial Circuit of Virginia; JUDGE
HODGES, 2nd Judicial Circuit of Virginia; JUDGE HAMMONS, 2nd
Judicial Circuit of Virginia Re Bond,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (3:15-cv-00658-TLW)

Submitted:

December 15, 2015

Before GREGORY
Circuit Judge.

and

FLOYD,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

December 17, 2015

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John S. Stritzinger, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2004

Doc: 17

Filed: 12/17/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
John

Stritzinger

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

orders adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss
his

complaint

and

denying

reconsideration.

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 denying the timely filed motion
for reconsideration was entered on the docket on July 9, 2015.
See Fed. R. Civ. 59(e); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A).
of appeal was filed on September 1, 2015.
failed

to

extension
appeal.
dispense

file
or

a

timely

reopening

of

notice
the

of

Because Stritzinger

appeal

appeal

The notice

or

period,

to
we

obtain

dismiss

an
the

We deny the motion for leave to file electronically and
with

contentions

oral

are

argument

adequately

because
presented

2

the
in

facts
the

and

legal

materials

Appeal: 15-2004

before

Doc: 17

this

court

Filed: 12/17/2015

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3