### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-60563 Summary Calendar

PAUL EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. BRENDA SIMS; MARSHALL TURNER; RONALD KING, Defendants-Appellees

A ppeal from the United States District Court f or the Southern District of Mississippi U SDC No. 2:11-CV-7

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * P a ul Evans, M ississippi prisoner # K9280, brought this civil a c t i o n a g a i n s t the d efendant prison authorities, Brenda Sims, Marshall Turner, and Ron King, alleging that they viol a t e d his federal c onstitutional rights when they stripsearched him. S ee 42 U.S.C. § 1983. T he d i s t r i c t c o urt granted summary judgment to the defendants on April 19, 2012. Evans moved for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) on May 7, 2012. The d i strict court overruled that motion o n J une 7 , 2012. A c c ording t o his certificate of service, U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D March 8, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-60563 Document: 00512169292 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2013No. 12-60563

Evans f iled a notice of appeal on July 1 1, 2012, at the e a r l i e s t

. On that same date, Evans moved for p ermission to p r oceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The d istrict c ourt d enied the I FP motion, stating that the p eriod in which to file

an appeal had expired. The d istrict court determined that E vans’s appeal was not in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Evans now moves i n this court for leave from to appeal IFP. As a threshold matter, we must de t e r m i n e whether Evans filed a timely notice of appeal. See Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 206-07 (2007). Evans had 30 days after April 19, 2012, to file a n otice o f appeal from the judgment dismissing his complaint. See F E D
. R

. A P P
. P. 4 (a)(1)(A); F E D
. R. C I V
. P. 6(a). He instead filed

a timely motion f

o r reconsideration under F ederal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which t olled the running of time for filing a notice of appeal from the judgment of dismissal. See F E D
. R. C I V
. P. 4(a)(4)(A); Fischer v. U n ited States , 759 F.2d 461, 464 (5th Cir. 1 985). Therefore, the 30-day period for filing a notice of appeal from t he April judgment of dismissal did not begin to run until the district court denied Evans’s Rule 59(e) motion on June 7, 2012. See F E D
. R. C I V
. P. 4(a)(4)(A). The notice of appeal filed by Evans on Jul y 1 1 , 2 012, was untimely. Because the district court entered its order denying reconsideration on June 7, 2012, Evans was required to f ile his notice o f appeal no l ater t han Monday, July 9, 2012. See F E D
. R

. C I V
. P

. 6(a)(1). Evans f ails to provide ei t h e r a r g u ment or authorities to s how that his notic e o f a ppeal w as timely filed. S ee Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). We h a ve n o jurisdiction. Consequently, we dismiss h is appeal for lack of j urisdiction. See B owles , 551 U.S. at 206-07. IFP MOTION DENIED; A PPEAL DISMISSED F OR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

2 Case: 12-60563 Document: 00512169292 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2013