Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06125/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06125-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-6125

SENTELLUS MCDONALD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RANDLE JONES,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:14-ct-03028-BO)

Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 21, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sentellus McDonald, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6125 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Sentellus McDonald seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(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 order was entered on the docket on 

November 10, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on January 

26, 2015.* Because McDonald 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 

 * The notice of appeal is undated. For the purpose of this 

appeal, we assume that the date of the postmark on the envelope

containing 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).

Appeal: 15-6125 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/21/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6125 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/21/2015 Pg: 3 of 3