Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07792/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07792-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-7792

JERRY WAYNE SHARPE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; LEA ANNE MURPHY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (5:14-ct-03269-F)

Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016

Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Wayne Sharpe, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7792 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Wayne Sharpe seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action as 

frivolous. 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

April 23, 2015. Liberally construing Sharpe’s motion for bail 

or release pending appeal as a notice of appeal, Sharpe did not 

note his appeal until August 21, 2015.* Because Sharpe failed to 

file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or 

reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We also 

deny Sharpe’s motions for bail or release pending appeal and his 

motion for a temporary restraining order. We dispense with oral 

 * 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: 15-7792 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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: 15-7792 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pg: 3 of 3