Case Name: Nakia Reshea SUTTON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Dale CASKEY; Sandra Atwood; Unknown Carmichael; Bart Grimes, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-09
Citations: 561 F. App'x 407
Docket Number: No. 13-60343
Parties: Nakia Reshea SUTTON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Dale CASKEY; Sandra Atwood; Unknown Carmichael; Bart Grimes, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 561
Pages: 407–407

Head Matter:
Nakia Reshea SUTTON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Dale CASKEY; Sandra Atwood; Unknown Carmichael; Bart Grimes, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-60343
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 9, 2014.
Nakia R. Sutton, Meridian, MS, pro se.
Robert Thomas Bailey, Lee Thaggard, Esq., Barry, Thaggard, May & Bailey, L.L.P., Meridian, MS, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Nakia Reshea Sutton, Mississippi prisoner # R4655, appeals from the summary judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint in which he alleged that the defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to his medical needs. He also moves for the appointment of counsel and to correct the record.
This court must examine the basis for its jurisdiction on its own motion. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). In a civil case, a timely notice of appeal is "mandatory and jurisdictional." Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).
Sutton's notice of appeal, filed more than 30 days after the denial of his timely motion to alter and amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), is untimely. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(a)(1)(A), (a)(4)(A). Thus, this court lacks jurisdiction over the instant appeal, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See Bowles, 551 U.S. at 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360. Sutton's motions for the appointment of counsel and to correct the record are DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.