Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07765/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07765-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Gordon
Appellee
Frank Edward Green
Appellant
J. Pritts
Appellee
R. Ritchie
Appellee
Christ Wedlock
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7765

FRANK E. GREEN,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

J. PRITTS, CO II; J. GORDON, CO III; R. RITCHIE, CO II; 

CHRIST WEDLOCK, CO III,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (1:14-cv-00868-JFM)

Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: April 25, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank Edward Green, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith LaneWeber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7765 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/25/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Frank Edward Green seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action and denying 

his motion for reconsideration. 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 final order was entered on the docket 

on September 24, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on

October 28, 2015.* Because Green 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 

 * 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: 15-7765 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/25/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7765 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/25/2016 Pg: 3 of 3