William Davis, Jr. v. Richard Durham

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to consolidate case (Local Rule 12(b)) [999968737-2], denying Motion to consolidate case (Local Rule 12(b)) [999964428-2]; denying Motion for other relief [999968617-2], denying Motion for other relief [999953859-2] Originating case number: 5:11-cv-00036-H Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999976822]. Mailed to: W Davis. [16-2011]

Appeal: 16-2011

Doc: 16

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2011

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ATTORNEY RICHARD DURHAM,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:11-cv-00036-H)

Submitted:

November 22, 2016

Before DIAZ and
Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

November 29, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2011

Doc: 16

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
William

Scott

Davis,

Jr.,

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s text order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion in a
closed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action.

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
May 5, 2016.

The notice of appeal was filed on August 30, 2016. *

Because Davis failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain
dismiss
Davis’
litem.

an
the

extension
appeal.

motions

to

or
We

reopening

of

the

deny

all

pending

consolidate

and

to

appeal

period,

motions,

appoint

a

we

including

guardian

ad

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

*

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: 16-2011

legal
before

Doc: 16

contentions
this

court

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3