Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-06996/USCOURTS-ca4-14-06996-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6996

CHARLES M. CASSELL, III,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

FNU DAWKINS, Dr.; DAVID GUINN, Physician’s Assistant,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney, 

Chief District Judge. (5:14-cv-00060-FDW)

Submitted: December 15, 2014 Decided: January 12, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles M. Cassell, III, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6996 Doc: 46 Filed: 01/12/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles M. Cassell, III, seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. 

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 May 2, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on June 19, 

2014. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (notice of 

appeal deemed filed upon its delivery to prison officials for 

mailing). Because Cassell 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

Appeal: 14-6996 Doc: 46 Filed: 01/12/2015 Pg: 2 of 2