William Davis, Jr. v. Richard Durham


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-2011 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2011 WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ATTORNEY RICHARD DURHAM, Defendant -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 THACKER, Circuit Decided: Judges, November 29, 2016 and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?