Filed: Mar. 31, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7469 TERICK MIKE JAMES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MS. RODRIQUES, Emergency Medical Technician, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00528-TDS-LPA) Submitted: March 9, 2017 Decided: March 31, 2017 Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Teri
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7469 TERICK MIKE JAMES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MS. RODRIQUES, Emergency Medical Technician, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00528-TDS-LPA) Submitted: March 9, 2017 Decided: March 31, 2017 Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Teric..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7469
TERICK MIKE JAMES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MS. RODRIQUES, Emergency Medical Technician,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:16-cv-00528-TDS-LPA)
Submitted: March 9, 2017 Decided: March 31, 2017
Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terick Mike James, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terick Mike James seeks to appeal the district court’s
judgment accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge
and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(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 judgment was entered on the docket on
September 2, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on October
17, 2016. * Because James 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
* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to
the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack,
487 U.S. 266
(1988).
2
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3