Edward Eaves v. City of Charlotte

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999999610-2]. Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00129-GCM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000119986]. Mailed to: Edward Eaves. [16-2455]

Appeal: 16-2455

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/18/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2455

EDWARD EAVES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF CHARLOTTE,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:16-cv-00129-GCM)

Submitted: June 28, 2017

Decided: July 18, 2017

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Eaves, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel E. Peterson, CHARLOTTE CITY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2455

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/18/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Edward Eaves seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his employment
discrimination complaint for failure to state a claim. The City of Charlotte has moved to
dismiss Eaves’ appeal as untimely 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 September 19, 2016. The
notice of appeal was filed on December 27, 2016. Because Eaves failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant the
City’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

2