James Barnett, Jr. v. Alamance Regional Med. Center

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [1000245346-2]. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00068-LCB-JLW. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000269479]. Mailed to: James Anthony Barnett, Jr. [18-6114]

Appeal: 18-6114

Doc: 16

Filed: 04/03/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6114

JAMES ANTHONY BARNETT, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ALAMANCE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; DR. BRIAN S. COPE,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00068-LCB-JLW)

Submitted: March 29, 2018

Decided: April 3, 2018

Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Anthony Barnett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 18-6114

Doc: 16

Filed: 04/03/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
James Anthony Barnett, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing his complaint without
prejudice. 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 May 3, 2016. The notice of
appeal was filed on January 8, 2018. * Because Barnett failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal
and deny Bennett’s motion to appoint counsel. 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

*

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