Filed: Oct. 17, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1617 MILTON SC MAYS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RAYNOR AND ASSOCIATES; RICHARD RAYNOR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:15-cv-00177-FL) Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 17, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Milton S.C.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1617 MILTON SC MAYS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RAYNOR AND ASSOCIATES; RICHARD RAYNOR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:15-cv-00177-FL) Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 17, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Milton S.C. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1617
MILTON SC MAYS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RAYNOR AND ASSOCIATES; RICHARD RAYNOR,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:15-cv-00177-FL)
Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 17, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Milton S.C. Mays, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Milton S.C. Mays seeks to appeal the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss Mays’
civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice
of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded 30 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
November 5, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on May 31,
2016. Because Mays 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 this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
2