Anthony Jones v. Mildred Avalo

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-ct-03272-BO. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999899125]. Mailed to: Anthony Jones. [15-7259]

Appeal: 15-7259

Doc: 19

Filed: 07/28/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7259

ANTHONY D. JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MILDRED AVALOS; SUPERINTENDENT JOYCE KORNEGAY; JOHNNY HAWKINS,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:14-ct-03272-BO)

Submitted:

July 12, 2016

Decided:

July 28, 2016

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony D. Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Assistant
Attorney
General,
Raleigh,
Appellees.

Yvonne
North

Bulluck Ricci,
Carolina,
for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7259

Doc: 19

Filed: 07/28/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Anthony Darnell Jones 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 June
16, 2015.

Jones mailed a motion for an extension of time in which

to file a notice of appeal and a notice of appeal on July 20, 2015.
The court denied the motion for an extension of time, concluding
that Jones did not demonstrate good cause or excusable neglect
warranting such an extension. *

Because Jones failed to file a

*

We previously remanded this case to the district court for
further factual development on the limited question of whether
Jones timely filed his notice of appeal under Fed. R. App. P.
4(c)(1) and Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). We also
directed the court to reconsider Jones’ motion for an extension of
time in the event it concluded that Jones’ notice of appeal was
untimely. The court reasonably concluded that Jones delivered his
notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing to the court on
July 20, the date indicated on the postmark. We further conclude
2

Appeal: 15-7259

Doc: 19

Filed: 07/28/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

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

that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion
for an extension of time. See United States v. Breit, 754 F.2d
526, 528-29 (4th Cir. 1985) (providing standard).

3