Court Opinion

ID: 990131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:16:33.697095+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:35:28.338927
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ROGER LEE MCKOY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.                                                                  No. 95-2610

DANIEL B. BURKE, President,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
W. Earl Britt, District Judge.
(CA-95-343-5-BR)

Submitted: November 28, 1995

Decided: August 5, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINSON, and NIEMEYER,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Roger Lee McKoy, Appellant Pro Se. Frank Pelouze Ward, Jr., Shan-
non E. Brown, MAUPIN, TAYLOR, ELLIS & ADAMS, P.A.,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Roger Lee Mckoy filed a notice of appeal in this action against the
president of Capital Cities/ABC Inc. for alleged violations of his con-
stitutional "thinking rights."

On June 14, 1995, the district court granted the Defendant's motion
to dismiss McKoy's complaint. On July 6, 1995, McKoy filed a docu-
ment entitled "JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE WITH OUT A[N]
INVESTIGATION," which the court construed as a motion for recon-
sideration. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. On August 9, 1995, the court
denied the motion. McKoy filed a notice of appeal on August 25,
1995.

In this court, the Appellee (Defendant below) filed a motion to dis-
miss the appeal for failure to file a timely notice of appeal. We grant
in part and deny in part the Appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal.
We further affirm the district court's order denying McKoy's motion
for reconsideration.

McKoy did not specify in his notice of appeal the district court's
order he is appealing. To the extent that he is appealing from the dis-
trict court's order dismissing his complaint, the notice of appeal is
untimely because it was filed more than thirty days after the district
court entered its dismissal order. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). McKoy's
motion for reconsideration did not toll the time for filing an appeal
because it was not filed within ten days of the court's dismissal order.
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). Finally, McKoy did not move the district
court to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(5). Therefore, we grant Appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal
as to the appeal of the order dismissing McKoy's complaint.

McKoy's notice of appeal is timely as to the district court's order
denying his motion for reconsideration because it was filed within

                     2
thirty days of that order. Rule 4(a)(1). Therefore, we deny Appellee's
motion to dismiss the appeal as to the appeal of the order denying
McKoy's motion for reconsideration. However, the district court did
not abuse its discretion in denying McKoy's motion for reconsidera-
tion. McKoy's complaint claims that all television and radio stations
are "violating [his] constitution[al] thinking rights." He further alleges
that he has "no privacy because of the television and radio stations."
McKoy has not demonstrated that he is compelled to listen to televi-
sion and radio broadcasts. Furthermore, there is no recognized consti-
tutional right to think freely without outside influences. Therefore,
McKoy's claim is meritless.

Accordingly, we grant in part and deny in part Appellee's motion
to dismiss the appeal. We further affirm the district court's order
denying McKoy's motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order.
We grant McKoy leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART

                     3