Jerome Branch v. Ms. Badgett

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:11-cv-00124-HCM-FBS. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999607393]. Mailed to: Jerome Branch. [15-6667]

Appeal: 15-6667

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6667

JEROME BRANCH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MS. BADGETT, Head
BOAKYE, Doctor,

Nurse;

MS.

WHITE,

RNC-A

Nurse;

EDWARD

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (2:11-cv-00124-HCM-FBS)

Submitted:

June 18, 2015

Decided:

June 23, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Branch, Appellant Pro Se. Jeff W.Rosen, PENDER & COWARD,
PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6667

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Jerome Branch seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on Branch’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.

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 Sept.
14, 2012.

The notice of appeal was filed on April 29, 2015.

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

2