Court Opinion

ID: 4663017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-02-25 20:00:59.599563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:37.745981
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 20-2328

JAMIE NEIL PARKER,

                     Plaintiff - Appellant,

              v.

THOMAS H. LOCK, Judge; KRISTEN BALL; KARLA BETH DENNING,

                     Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:20-cv-00359-FL)

Submitted: February 23, 2021                                 Decided: February 25, 2021

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamie Neil Parker, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Jamie Neil Parker seeks to appeal the district court’s order and judgment adopting

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his civil action under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B). 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 15, 2020. Parker filed the notice

of appeal on December 8, 2020. Because Parker failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.

       We deny Parker’s motion to supplement the record and 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