Case Name: Freddy Wayne HURLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, Freddy Wayne Hurley, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary JOHNSON; Janie Cockrell; A.M. Stringfellow; Salvador Buentello; Leslie Woods; Susan Perryman, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-05
Citations: 70 F. App'x 788
Docket Number: No. 02-41083, 6:01-CV-476
Parties: Freddy Wayne HURLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, Freddy Wayne Hurley, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary JOHNSON; Janie Cockrell; A.M. Stringfellow; Salvador Buentello; Leslie Woods; Susan Perryman, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 70
Pages: 788–789

Head Matter:
Freddy Wayne HURLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, Freddy Wayne Hurley, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary JOHNSON; Janie Cockrell; A.M. Stringfellow; Salvador Buentello; Leslie Woods; Susan Perryman, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-41083, 6:01-CV-476.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 5, 2003.
Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Freddy Wayne Hurley, Texas prisoner # 453088, filed the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against employees of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division challenging the conditions of confinement for prisoners in protective custody. The district court dismissed his complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on April 24, 2002. Hurley did not file his notice of appeal until at the earliest June 19, 2002. Hurley has not shown that the district court clearly erred in concluding that documents mailed by Hurley to the district court in the proper time period were not in fact his notice of appeal. See Billiot v. Dolphin Servs., Inc., 225 F.3d 515, 517 (5th Cir.2000). The notice of appeal was therefore untimely, and, as a result, this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1); Dison v. Whitley, 20 F.3d 185, 186 (5th Cir.1994).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.