Filed: Nov. 13, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7335 RODNEY MCDONALD WILLIAMS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. William A. Webb, Magistrate Judge. (5:10-mc-00039) Submitted: October 23, 2012 Decided: November 13, 2012 Before AGEE, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney McDonal
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7335 RODNEY MCDONALD WILLIAMS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. William A. Webb, Magistrate Judge. (5:10-mc-00039) Submitted: October 23, 2012 Decided: November 13, 2012 Before AGEE, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney McDonald..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7335
RODNEY MCDONALD WILLIAMS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. William A. Webb,
Magistrate Judge. (5:10-mc-00039)
Submitted: October 23, 2012 Decided: November 13, 2012
Before AGEE, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rodney McDonald William, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rodney McDonald Williams, Jr., seeks to appeal the
magistrate judge’s order returning Williams’ declaration because
it did not have a case number or name. 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 magistrate judge’s order was entered on the docket
on November 29, 2011. The notice of appeal was considered filed
on July 24, 2012. Because Williams failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the
appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
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
2