Court Opinion

ID: 4308000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-08-28 19:00:26.85351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:15:42.261659
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 18-6598

ROGER EARL COLEY,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

OFFICIAL MS. LIVENGOOD; MS. CROWDER,

                    Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cv-00361-TDS-JLW)

Submitted: August 23, 2018                                        Decided: August 28, 2018

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger Earl Coley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

         Roger Earl Coley seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate

judge’s recommendation and dismissing Coley’s civil action without prejudice. We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely

filed.

         Parties are accorded 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’s order was entered on the docket on July 18, 2017. The notice

of appeal was filed on May 16, 2018. * Because Coley 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

         *
        For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of
appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for
mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

                                               2