Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06937/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06937-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brent William Cook
Appellant
Yvette King
Appellee
Michael Thomas
Appellee
Michael Wade
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6937

BRENT W. COOK,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL WADE, Sheriff; YVETTE KING, Psychologist; MICHAEL 

THOMAS, Head of Mental Health,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, 

District Judge. (1:14-cv-00021-GBL-JFA)

Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brent William Cook, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6937 Doc: 15 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Brent William Cook seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without 

prejudice. 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. The notice of appeal was filed on June 16, 

2015. Because Cook failed to file a timely notice of appeal or 

to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 

We deny Cook’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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: 15-6937 Doc: 15 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 2 of 2