Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07058/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07058-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7058

RODNEY MCDONALD WILLIAMS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, 

Chief District Judge. (5:14-ct-03267-D)

Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney McDonald Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7058 Doc: 16 Filed: 10/20/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Rodney McDonald Williams seeks to appeal the district 

court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice his complaint. 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 judgment was entered on the docket on

May 4, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on June 30, 2015.*

Because Williams 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 

 * 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).

Appeal: 15-7058 Doc: 16 Filed: 10/20/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7058 Doc: 16 Filed: 10/20/2015 Pg: 3 of 3