William Carawan, Jr. v. Helm

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00693-FDW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000178488]. Mailed to: Carawan. [17-6545]

Appeal: 17-6545

Doc: 13

Filed: 10/23/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6545

WILLIAM CARAWAN, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HELMS, Correctional Officer, Lanesboro CI; MCLENDON, Correctional Officer,
Lanesboro CI,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:16-cv-00693-FDW)

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: October 23, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Carawan, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6545

Doc: 13

Filed: 10/23/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
William Carawan, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing 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 October 25, 2016. The
notice of appeal was filed at the earliest, on January 1, 2017. Because Carawan failed to
file a timely notice of appeal and because the district court denied his motion for an
extension of time, 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