Frank E. Green v. J. Pritt
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00868-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999802731]. Mailed to: Frank Edward Green WESTERN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 13800 McMullen Highway, SW Cumberland, MD 21502-2150. [15-7765]
Appeal: 15-7765
Doc: 9
Filed: 04/25/2016
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7765
FRANK E. GREEN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
J. PRITTS, CO II; J. GORDON, CO III; R. RITCHIE, CO II;
CHRIST WEDLOCK, CO III,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:14-cv-00868-JFM)
Submitted:
April 21, 2016
Decided:
April 25, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank Edward Green, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith LaneWeber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-7765
Doc: 9
Filed: 04/25/2016
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Frank Edward Green seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action and denying
his motion for reconsideration.
of
jurisdiction
because
the
We dismiss the appeal for lack
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 final order was entered on the docket
on
September
24,
October 28, 2015. *
2015.
The
notice
of
appeal
was
filed
on
Because Green 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
*
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: 15-7765
Doc: 9
Filed: 04/25/2016
Pg: 3 of 3
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?