Court Opinion

ID: 4681370
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-04-27 19:00:43.359305+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:01.182853
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 20-7529

OLANDER R. BYNUM,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

HARRY L. ALLSBROOK,

                     Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:97-hc-00495-H)

Submitted: April 22, 2021                                         Decided: April 27, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Olander R. Bynum, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Olander R. Bynum seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying Bynum’s Fed.

R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. 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 1, 2020. Bynum filed the notice

of appeal on October 7, 2020. * Because Bynum 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 Bynum could have delivered the notice to prison officials for
mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

                                            2