David R. Corbin v. Judge Talmadge Baggett

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:17-cv-00129-CCE-LPA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000163325]. Mailed to: David R. Corbin. [17-1665]

Appeal: 17-1665

Doc: 8

Filed: 09/28/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1665

DAVID R. CORBIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JUDGE TALMADGE BAGGETT; BILLY WEST, DISTRICT ATTORNEY; THE
WILLIFORD LAW FIRM; ELLEN HANCOCK, TRIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE COURT; CHRISTA BAKER, TRIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
COURT,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00129-CCE-LPA)

Submitted: September 26, 2017

Decided: September 28, 2017

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David R. Corbin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-1665

Doc: 8

Filed: 09/28/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
David R. Corbin seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation to deny relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. 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 April 21, 2017. The notice
of appeal was filed on May 24, 2017. Because Corbin 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 in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

2