George Stokes v. Glenn Harri

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cv-00935-JAB-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999885107]. Mailed to: appellant. [15-2475]

Appeal: 15-2475

Doc: 42

Filed: 07/12/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2475

GEORGE VICTOR STOKES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GLENN
A.
HARRIS,
OFFICER
OF
ROCKINGHAM
CITY
POLICE
DEPARTMENT, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; CITY
OF ROCKINGHAM,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:10-cv-00935-JAB-LPA)

Submitted:

June 30, 2016

Decided:

July 12, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Victor Stokes, Appellant Pro Se.
Dan McCord Hartzog,
Katie Weaver Hartzog, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2475

Doc: 42

Filed: 07/12/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
George

Victor

Stokes

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing
his

civil

action.

We

dismiss

the

appeal

for

lack

of

jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
In a civil action where the United States is not a party,
the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 30 days after
the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, 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
October 14, 2014.

Stokes filed a motion for an extension of

time to file an appeal on September 29, 2015. *

The district

court granted Stokes’ motion on November 12, 2015, and Stokes
filed a notice of appeal on November 16, 2015.
Although the district court granted Stokes an extension of
time to note an appeal, we find that the court lacked authority
to do so.

The plain language of Rule 4(a)(5) requires that a

*

The motion is considered filed the day Stokes delivered it
to prison officials for mailing to the court.
Fed. R. App. P.
4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

2

Appeal: 15-2475

Doc: 42

Filed: 07/12/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

motion for an extension of time be filed, at the latest, 30 days
after the expiration of the 30-day appeal period.

Fed. R. App.

P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i).
Additionally, Rule 4(a)(6) requires that a motion to reopen
the appeal period be filed, at the latest, “180 days after the
judgment or order is entered.”

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(B).

Stokes’ motion for an extension of time to appeal was filed 350
days after the entry of the district court’s order; accordingly,
the district court lacked authority to reopen the appeal period.
See Baker v. United States, 670 F.3d 448, 456 (3d Cir. 2012)
(holding that district court had no authority to reopen appeal
period when motion was filed beyond 180-day limit); Hensley v.
Chesapeake & Ohio Ry., 651 F.2d 226, 228 (4th Cir. 1981) (noting
expiration

of

time

limits

in

Rule

4

deprives

court

of

earliest,

on

jurisdiction).
The
November

notice
16,

of

2015.

appeal
Because

was

filed,

Stokes

at

failed

the
to

file

a

timely

notice of appeal or to timely move for an extension or reopening
of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3