Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jones v. Lassiter, 03-7302 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-7302 Visitors: 12
Filed: Jul. 28, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7302 PAUL W. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MELANIE LASSITER, R.N.; GADDY LASSITER, Doctor; S. KNIGHT, Medical Administrator; WILLIE SCOTT, Warden; WACKENHUT CORRECTIONAL CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-897-5-F) Submitted: March 19, 2004 Decided: July 28, 2004 Before WID
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7302 PAUL W. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MELANIE LASSITER, R.N.; GADDY LASSITER, Doctor; S. KNIGHT, Medical Administrator; WILLIE SCOTT, Warden; WACKENHUT CORRECTIONAL CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-897-5-F) Submitted: March 19, 2004 Decided: July 28, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul W. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Paul W. Jones appeals the district court’s order denying his motions for change of venue and for reconsideration of its previous order dismissing Jones’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying the requested change of venue and reconsideration. See Jones v. Lassiter, No. CA-02-897-5-F (E.D.N.C. filed Aug. 6, 2003 & entered Aug. 11, 2003). To the extent that Jones seeks to appeal the court’s order dismissing his § 1983 action, his notice of appeal is untimely. The court’s order dismissing Jones’s § 1983 action was entered on its docket on June 26, 2003. Jones’s notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on August 18, 2003, which was beyond the thirty-day appeal period. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Therefore, to the extent that Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his § 1983 action, we dismiss his appeal as untimely. 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. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART - 2 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer