Case Name: Eric LARA, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard L. STADLER; Washington Correctional Institute; C. Paul Phelps Correctional Center; Allen Correctional Center; Wackenhut Corporation, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-20
Citations: 108 F. App'x 208
Docket Number: No. 04-30385
Parties: Eric LARA, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard L. STADLER; Washington Correctional Institute; C. Paul Phelps Correctional Center; Allen Correctional Center; Wackenhut Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before EMILIO GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 108
Pages: 208–209

Head Matter:
Eric LARA, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard L. STADLER; Washington Correctional Institute; C. Paul Phelps Correctional Center; Allen Correctional Center; Wackenhut Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-30385.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Sept. 20, 2004.
Eric Lara, Sr., Jackson, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Before EMILIO GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Eric Lara, Sr., Louisiana prisoner # 353026, requests leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis (IFP) on appeal so that he may challenge the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). A timely notice of appeal is a prerequisite to the exercise of jurisdiction by this court. Dison v. Whitley, 20 F.3d 185, 186 (5th Cir.1994). Because Lara did not file his notice of appeal within 30 days of the entry of judgment in the instant case, this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. Id.; Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).
Consequently, Lara's appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Lara's motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.