Russell Walker v. J.P. Thomas & Co., Inc.
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999722419-2] Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00738-JLW. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999764009]. Mailed to: Russell Walker. [15-2520]
Appeal: 15-2520
Doc: 22
Filed: 02/29/2016
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2520
RUSSELL F. WALKER,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
J.P. THOMAS & CO. INC.; TOWN OF ABERDEEN, NORTH CAROLINA;
OFFICER J. J. SMITH,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
Joe L. Webster,
Magistrate Judge. (1:14-cv-00738-JLW)
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Russell F. Walker, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-2520
Doc: 22
Filed: 02/29/2016
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Russell F. Walker seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s
order dismissing his complaint with prejudice.
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
September
29,
2015.
December 7, 2015.
The
notice
of
appeal
was
filed
on
Because Walker failed to file a timely notice
of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss
the appeal.
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?