Filed: Jun. 01, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6269 KAIMEL GLENN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER FRAZENBAKER, CO II; OFFICER DAVIE, CO II; OFFICER MCVAY, CO II, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cv-03098-WDQ) Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6269 KAIMEL GLENN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER FRAZENBAKER, CO II; OFFICER DAVIE, CO II; OFFICER MCVAY, CO II, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cv-03098-WDQ) Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6269
KAIMEL GLENN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICER FRAZENBAKER, CO II; OFFICER DAVIE, CO II; OFFICER
MCVAY, CO II,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:09-cv-03098-WDQ)
Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kaimel Glenn, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kaimel Glenn seeks to appeal the district court’s
order administratively closing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)
action. 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 October 14, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on or about
January 27, 2011. ∗ Because Glenn 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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
∗
We have given Glenn the benefit of prison mailroom rule.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack,
487 U.S. 266 (1988).
2