Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01617/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01617-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Milton S.C. Mays
Appellant
Richard Raynor
Appellee
Raynor and Associates
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1617

MILTON SC MAYS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RAYNOR AND ASSOCIATES; RICHARD RAYNOR,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:15-cv-00177-FL)

Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 17, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Milton S.C. Mays, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1617 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Milton S.C. Mays seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss Mays’ 

civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). 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 

November 5, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on May 31, 

2016. Because Mays 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 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-1617 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 2 of 2