Myron Nunn v. Ricky Matthew

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-ct-03150-D. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999590536].. [15-6469]

Appeal: 15-6469

Doc: 10

Filed: 05/27/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6469

MYRON RODERICK NUNN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RICKY MATTHEWS; COLBERT L. RESPASS,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:14-ct-03150-D)

Submitted:

May 21, 2015

Decided:

May 27, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Myron Roderick Nunn, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6469

Doc: 10

Filed: 05/27/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Myron Roderick Nunn seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action.

We dismiss

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal
was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the
district court’s final judgment 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).
notice

of

appeal

requirement.”

in

a

civil

“[T]he timely filing of a

case

is

a

jurisdictional

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on
December 23, 2014.
2015. *

The notice of appeal was filed on March 20,

Because Nunn failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

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

and

legal

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

*

adequately

presented

in

the

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).

2

Appeal: 15-6469

Doc: 10

materials

before

Filed: 05/27/2015

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3