William Scott Davis, II v. Unknown
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: William Scott Davis II. [17-6509]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, II,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
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
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).
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?