Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07010/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07010-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold Clarke
Appellee
Eric Joseph DePaola
Appellant
Mark Engelke
Appellee
John Garman
Appellee
George Hinkle
Appellee
Randall Mathena
Appellee
Tracy Ray
Appellee
W. P. Rogers
Appellee
P. Scarberry
Appellee
Linda Shear
Appellee
Virginia Department of Corrections
Appellee
James Wade
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7010

ERIC J. DEPAOLA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; HAROLD CLARKE; W. P. 

ROGERS; MARK ENGELKE; JOHN GARMAN; GEORGE HINKLE; TRACY RAY; 

RANDALL MATHENA; LINDA SHEAR; JAMES WADE; P. SCARBERRY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge. 

(7:12-cv-00592-JPJ-RSB)

Submitted: November 30, 2015 Decided: December 17, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Eric Joseph DePaola, Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons, 

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7010 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/17/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Eric Joseph DePaola seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2012) claim alleging that prison food at Red Onion State 

Prison does not conform to the dietary restrictions of his 

religion. He also appeals the court’s order denying his Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration. 

We dismiss DePaola’s appeal from the district court’s order 

granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 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 granting Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment was entered on the docket on August 12, 2014. 

The notice of appeal was filed on June 24, 2015.* Furthermore, 

 * 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: 15-7010 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/17/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

DePaola’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion did not toll the period for 

him to timely note an appeal because he filed the motion more than 

28 days after the court’s order granting summary judgment. See

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). Because DePaola failed to file a 

timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of 

the appeal period, we dismiss DePaola’s appeal from the district 

court’s order granting summary judgment.

With respect to DePaola’s appeal from the district court’s 

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, we have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

this order. See DePaola v. Virginia Dep’t of Corr., No. 7:12-cv00592-JPJ-RSB (W.D. Va. June 17, 2015). 

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 IN PART

AFFIRMED IN PART

Appeal: 15-7010 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/17/2015 Pg: 3 of 3