Clifford Jackson v. Stuart Berger ( 2013 )

Certiorari dismissed by Supreme Court, April 7, 2014
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6631
CLIFFORD ANTHONY JACKSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STUART BERGER,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:12-cv-02686-PJM)
Submitted: August 20, 2013 Decided: September 6, 2013
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clifford Anthony Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Clifford Anthony Jackson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint
as legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(i) (2006).
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 September 18, 2012. It was incumbent upon Jackson to file
his notice of appeal by October 18, 2012. Jackson filed a
motion for extension of time along with his notice of appeal in
this court on March 18, 2013. * See Fed. R. App. P. 4(d) (a
notice of appeal mistakenly filed in the court of appeals is
considered filed in the district court on the date so noted).
*
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on his motion 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
The district court ultimately denied Jackson’s motion for
extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Because Jackson’s
notice of appeal was untimely filed and Jackson failed to obtain
an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the
appeal. We further deny Jackson’s motion to disqualify Judges
Motz, Davis, and Wynn. 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
3