Roger Coley v. Ms. Livengood

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:17-cv-00361-TDS-JLW. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000356410]. Mailed to: Roger Coley. [18-6598]

Appeal: 18-6598

Doc: 16

Filed: 08/28/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6598

ROGER EARL COLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICIAL MS. LIVENGOOD; MS. CROWDER,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cv-00361-TDS-JLW)

Submitted: August 23, 2018

Decided: August 28, 2018

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger Earl Coley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 18-6598

Doc: 16

Filed: 08/28/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Roger Earl Coley seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation and dismissing Coley’s civil action 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 July 18, 2017. The notice
of appeal was filed on May 16, 2018. * Because Coley 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

*

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