Rodney Williams, Jr. v. State of North Carolina

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-ct-03267-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999681526]. Mailed to: appellant. [15-7058]

Appeal: 15-7058

Doc: 16

Filed: 10/20/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7058

RODNEY MCDONALD WILLIAMS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Defendant - Appellant.

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-03267-D)

Submitted:

October 15, 2015

Decided:

October 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney McDonald Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7058

Doc: 16

Filed: 10/20/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Rodney

McDonald

Williams

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice his 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 judgment was entered on the docket on
May 4, 2015.

The notice of appeal was filed on June 30, 2015. *

Because Williams failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain

an

extension

dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

legal

or

reopening

of

the

appeal

period,

we

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: 15-7058

Doc: 16

materials

before

Filed: 10/20/2015

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3