Court Opinion

ID: 4568178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-09-22 22:32:51.469107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:37.203138
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-6061

ERROL DOUGLASS FULFORD-EL,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

MS. LAU, Law Library Coordinator,

                    Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:19-cv-01216-RDB)

Submitted: July 21, 2020                                          Decided: July 23, 2020

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Errol Douglass Fulford-El, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Errol Fulford-El seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (2018) complaint without prejudice for failure to provide the court with an updated

address. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was

not timely filed.

       In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final

judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 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).

       The district court entered its order on September 20, 2019. Fulford-El filed the

notice of appeal on January 7, 2020. Because Fulford-El failed to file a timely notice of

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening 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 this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                              DISMISSED

                                            2