BURNLEY v. NORWOOD, 11-1729. (2011)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20111122161
Visitors: 11
Filed: Nov. 22, 2011
Latest Update: Nov. 22, 2011
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Rodgers Burnley seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty 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
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Rodgers Burnley seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty 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 ..
More
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Rodgers Burnley seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty 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 August 4, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on July 11, 2011. Because Burnley failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Burnley's motion to strike. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.
Source: Leagle
