Milton S.C. Mays v. Raynor Builders of Louisburg

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-cv-00027-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999972024]. Mailed to: Milton S.C. Mays 2700 McConnell Road Greensboro, NC 27401 Blair Kristen Beddow. [16-1966]

Appeal: 16-1966

Doc: 6

Filed: 11/21/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1966

MILTON S.C. MAYS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RAYNOR BUILDERS OF LOUISBURG; RICHARD RAYNOR,
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-cv-00027-BO)

Submitted:

November 17, 2016

Before GREGORY,
Judges.

Chief

Judge,

Decided:

and

MOTZ

and

November 21, 2016

TRAXLER,

Circuit

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Milton S.C. Mays, Appellant Pro Se.
Blair Kristen Beddow,
BROUGHTON, WILKINS, SMITH, SUGGS & THOMPSON, PLLC, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1966

Doc: 6

Filed: 11/21/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Milton S.C. Mays seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing

Mays’

civil

action

for

failure

to

prosecute.

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
July 17, 2015.

The notice of appeal was filed on May 31, 2016.

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

an

extension

dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

or

reopening

of

the

appeal

period,

we

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

2