Filed: Mar. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2331 CHRISTOPHER LEE JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. APPLE, INC.; TIM COOK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (6:17-cv-02149-MGL) Submitted: March 5, 2018 Decided: March 13, 2018 Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Lee Johnson, Appe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2331 CHRISTOPHER LEE JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. APPLE, INC.; TIM COOK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (6:17-cv-02149-MGL) Submitted: March 5, 2018 Decided: March 13, 2018 Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Lee Johnson, Appel..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-2331
CHRISTOPHER LEE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
APPLE, INC.; TIM COOK,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (6:17-cv-02149-MGL)
Submitted: March 5, 2018 Decided: March 13, 2018
Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Lee Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Lee Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the
magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing Johnson’s civil complaint without
prejudice. 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 September 21, 2017. The
notice of appeal was filed on November 6, 2017. Because Johnson 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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
2