Filed: Nov. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1867 DANIEL D. WILLIAMS; PATTIE D. WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; NASH COUNTY; BLB TRADING L.L.C., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:12-cv-00680-D) Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 24, 2014 Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1867 DANIEL D. WILLIAMS; PATTIE D. WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; NASH COUNTY; BLB TRADING L.L.C., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:12-cv-00680-D) Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 24, 2014 Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, S..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1867
DANIEL D. WILLIAMS; PATTIE D. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; NASH COUNTY; BLB TRADING L.L.C.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:12-cv-00680-D)
Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 24, 2014
Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel D. Williams; Pattie D. Williams, Appellants Pro Se.
Kathryn Hicks Shields, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh,
North Carolina; Renner Jo St. John, ROGERS, TOWNSEND & THOMAS,
PC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel D. Williams and Pattie D. Williams seek to
appeal the district court’s orders granting Defendants’ motions
to dismiss their civil complaint and denying relief under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59(e). 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 July 18, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on August 19,
2014, one day after the appeal period expired. * Because the
Williamses 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
*
The thirtieth day fell on Sunday, August 17, 2014. Thus,
the Williamses had until Monday, August 18, to timely file their
notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1).
2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3