William Scott Davis, II v. Unknown

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000101227-2], [1000080106-2] Originating case number: 2:16-cv-00548-MSD-LRL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000124534]. Mailed to: William Scott Davis II. [17-6509]

Appeal: 17-6509

Doc: 16

Filed: 07/25/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6509

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, II,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNKNOWN,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00548-MSD-LRL)

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 25, 2017

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Scott Davis, II, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6509

Doc: 16

Filed: 07/25/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
William Scott Davis, II, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because
the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal
must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or
order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 extended the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(5) to December 12,
2016. The notice of appeal was filed on April 4, 2017. * Because Davis failed to file a
timely notice of appeal, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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

*

The notice of appeal is undated. For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that
the postmark date appearing on the envelope containing 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