Jerry Wayne Sharpe v. State of North Carolina
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for bail/release pending appeal (Local Rule 9(a) and (b)) [999748100-2], denying Motion for bail/release pending appeal (Local Rule 9(a) and (b)) [999722990-2]; denying Motion for other relief [999722995-2] Originating case number: 5:14-ct-03269-F Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Sharpe. [15-7792]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JERRY WAYNE SHARPE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; LEA ANNE MURPHY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:14-ct-03269-F)
February 25, 2016
Before SHEDD and
March 2, 2016
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerry Wayne Sharpe, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Jerry Wayne Sharpe seeks to appeal the district court’s
because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
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).
filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on
April 23, 2015.
Liberally construing Sharpe’s motion for bail
or release pending appeal as a notice of appeal, Sharpe did not
note his appeal until August 21, 2015. *
Because Sharpe failed to
file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or
reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.
deny Sharpe’s motions for bail or release pending appeal and his
motion for a temporary restraining order.
We dispense with oral
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
Pg: 3 of 3
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
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?