Terick James v. Ms. Rodrique

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00528-TDS-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000053134]. Mailed to: T James. [16-7469]

Appeal: 16-7469

Doc: 12

Filed: 03/31/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7469

TERICK MIKE JAMES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MS. RODRIQUES, Emergency Medical Technician,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:16-cv-00528-TDS-LPA)

Submitted:

March 9, 2017

Decided:

March 31, 2017

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terick Mike James, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7469

Doc: 12

Filed: 03/31/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Terick

Mike

James

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

judgment accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge
and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012).

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 judgment was entered on the docket on
September 2, 2016.
17, 2016. *

The notice of appeal was filed on October

Because James failed to file a timely notice of

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period, we dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

*

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: 16-7469

Doc: 12

Filed: 03/31/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3