James Barnett, Jr. v. Alamance Regional Med. Center ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 18-6114
    JAMES ANTHONY BARNETT, JR.,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    ALAMANCE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; DR. BRIAN S. COPE,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
    Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00068-LCB-JLW)
    Submitted: March 29, 2018                                         Decided: April 3, 2018
    Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James Anthony Barnett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    James Anthony Barnett, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the
    magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing his 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 May 3, 2016. The notice of
    appeal was filed on January 8, 2018. * Because Barnett failed to file a timely notice of
    appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal
    and deny Bennett’s motion to appoint counsel. 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
    *
    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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-6114

Filed Date: 4/3/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021