UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-6080

ALLAN A. PETERSEN, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

BRIAN PRICE; MICHELLE SPEARS; DOMINIC GUTIERREZ; SUSAN 

MCCLINTOCK; MAVIS HOLYFIELD, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:06-cv-00106-FPS-JSK) 

Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: January 7, 2010 

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and 

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Allan A. Petersen, Appellant Pro Se. Betsy C. Jividen, Acting 

United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Allan A. Petersen appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing with prejudice his civil rights complaint. We 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice 

of appeal was not timely filed. 

When the United States or its officer or agency is a 

party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty 

days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or 

order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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); see United States v. Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th 

Cir. 2009) (discussing Bowles and the appeal periods under Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)). 

The district court’s order dismissing Petersen’s 

complaint was entered on September 28, 2007, and the sixty-day 

appeal period expired on November 27, 2007. We have twice 

remanded this case to the district court to determine whether 

Petersen timely filed his notice of appeal or could establish 

good cause or excusable neglect to extend the appeal period. 

See Peterson v. Price, 324 F. App’x 230, 231 (4th Cir. 2009) 

2 
3 

(No. 08-6080); Peterson v. Price, 272 F. App’x 309 (4th Cir. 

2008) (No. 08-6080). 

In its most recent order, the district court concluded 

the notice of appeal was untimely because it was filed, at the 

earliest, on December 3, 2007. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. 

Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). In reaching this conclusion, the 

district court relied on evidence submitted by Defendants to 

refute the earlier filing date Petersen asserted. Petersen did 

not dispute this evidence in the district court and offers no 

contrary position on appeal. The district court further 

concluded Petersen had not established the good cause or 

excusable neglect required to extend the appeal period. 

We agree with the district court’s determination 

regarding the timeliness of the notice of appeal. Because 

Petersen failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain 

an extension 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 the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED