Sentellus McDonald v. Randle Jone

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-ct-03028-BO. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999568465]. Mailed to: Appellant. [15-6125]

Appeal: 15-6125

Doc: 17

Filed: 04/21/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6125

SENTELLUS MCDONALD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RANDLE JONES,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:14-ct-03028-BO)

Submitted:

April 16, 2015

Decided:

April 21, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sentellus McDonald, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6125

Doc: 17

Filed: 04/21/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Sentellus

McDonald

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012).

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
November 10, 2014.
26, 2015. *

The notice of appeal was filed on January

Because McDonald failed to file a timely notice of

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period, we dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

*

The notice of appeal is undated. For the purpose of this
appeal, we assume that the date of the postmark on the envelope
containing 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).

2

Appeal: 15-6125

Doc: 17

Filed: 04/21/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3