Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06469/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06469-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ricky Matthews
Appellee
Myron Roderick Nunn
Appellant
Colbert L. Respass
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6469

MYRON RODERICK NUNN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RICKY MATTHEWS; COLBERT L. RESPASS,

Defendants - Appellees.

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-03150-D)

Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: May 27, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Myron Roderick Nunn, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6469 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/27/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Myron Roderick Nunn seeks to appeal the district court’s 

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

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal 

was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the 

district court’s final judgment 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 

December 23, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on March 20, 

2015.* Because Nunn 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: 15-6469 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/27/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6469 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/27/2015 Pg: 3 of 3