Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07523/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07523-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Theodis Beck
Appellee
Boyd Bennett
Appellee
P. Bethea
Appellee
Crutchfield
Appellee
Debra Duncan
Appellee
C. Fields
Appellee
Jorge Gevara
Appellant
Ashe Harris
Appellee
F. B. Hubbard
Appellee
T. Jones
Appellee
Peter Keyser
Appellee
Amy S. Mackey
Appellee
Miller
Appellee
D. Jones Murphy
Appellee
David Ostorne
Appellee
Perritt
Appellee
Purcel
Appellee
Quick
Appellee
Paula Y. Smith
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7523

JORGE GEVARA, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

F. B. HUBBARD, Superintendent; CRUTCHFIELD, Assist. 

Superintendent of Programs; DEBRA DUNCAN, R.N. - Medical 

Administrator; C. FIELDS, Correctional Officer; DAVID 

OSTORNE, Asst. Director Prisons; PAULA Y. SMITH, Medical 

Director of Prisons; THEODIS BECK, Secretary of Prisons; D. 

JONES MURPHY, Nurse; AMY S. MACKEY; PETER KEYSER; PERRITT, 

Unit Manager; T. JONES, Asst. Unit Manager; P. BETHEA, 

Correctional Officer; PURCEL, Correctional Officer; QUICK, 

Sergeant; MILLER, Sergeant; ASHE HARRIS, Notary Public; BOYD 

BENNETT, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:09-cv-00681-WO-LPA) 

Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 18, 2015

Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Appeal: 15-7523 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/18/2015 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Jorge Gevara, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Yvette Harper, Assistant 

Attorney General, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 15-7523 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/18/2015 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM: 

Jorge Gevara seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil action. 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). “Lack of notice of 

the entry does not affect the time for appeal or relieve-or 

authorize the court to relieve-a party for failing to appeal 

within the time allowed, except as allowed by Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure (4)(a).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 77(d)(2). 

Rule 4(a)(6) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 

permits the reopening of the appeal period if a party has not 

received notice of the judgment or order within 21 days after 

entry, but the motion requesting such relief must be filed 

within 180 days after entry of the judgment or 14 days after the 

party received notice of the judgment or order, whichever is 

earlier. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time requirements of 

Rule 4(a) are mandatory and jurisdictional. Bowles v. Russell, 

551 U.S. 205, 208-14 (2007). 

Appeal: 15-7523 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/18/2015 Pg: 3 of 4
4

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on 

June 25, 2014. Gevara delivered a notice of appeal to prison 

officials for mailing on September 22, 2015. See Fed. R. App. 

P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). In the 

notice, Gevara claimed he “never received any judgment or notice 

about any dismissal.” However, the 180-day reopening period 

expired well before Gevara filed his notice of appeal. Thus, 

Gevara is not eligible for reopening of the appeal period. 

Nunley v. City of Los Angeles, 52 F.3d 792, 794-95 (9th Cir. 

1995); Hensley v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 651 F.2d 226, 228 

(4th Cir. 1981). 

Accordingly, because Gevara failed to file a timely notice 

of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period and is 

not eligible for 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: 15-7523 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/18/2015 Pg: 4 of 4