Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40791/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40791-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Batt
Appellee
Randolph Bowden
Appellant
Robert Eason
Appellee
Raymond Hendrix
Appellee
Manning
Appellee
Gracelia Ramos
Appellee
Rayford
Appellee
Linda Richey
Appellee
Rodenbeck
Appellee
Stephen Sims
Appellee
Calvin Wheat
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40791

Summary Calendar

RANDOLPH BOWDEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

STEPHEN SIMS; RAYMOND HENDRIX; DANIEL BATT; GRACELIA 

RAMOS; LINDA RICHEY; ROBERT EASON; CALVIN WHEAT; FNU 

MANNING, Captain; FNU RAYFORD, Major; FNU RODENBECK, Captain,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:13-CV-891

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Randolph Bowden, Texas prisoner # 1827604, filed a notice of appeal in 

this civil action following the district court’s denial of his motion for injunctive 

relief and the judgment dismissing the case without prejudice for failure to 

prosecute and failure to obey an order. This court must examine the basis of 

its own jurisdiction, sua sponte, if necessary. See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 21, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-40791 Document: 00513475563 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2016
No. 14-40791

2

659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). A timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional 

requirement in a civil case. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

Bowden’s notice of appeal was not timely. It was not filed within 30 days 

of the district court’s order denying injunctive relief or the judgment dismissing 

the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1). Even if Bowden’s 

post-judgment motion for time to file objections were considered a motion 

under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A) that served to suspend 

the start of the period for filing a notice of appeal, the district court’s order 

denying the motion was entered more than 30 days before the date of Bowden’s 

notice of appeal. In light of the untimeliness of Bowden’s notice of appeal, we 

lack jurisdiction over this appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 Case: 14-40791 Document: 00513475563 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2016