Court Opinion

ID: 9412344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-29 21:00:34.232574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:39.706272
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6404      Doc: 12         Filed: 07/28/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6404

        WILLIAM I. MARABLE, JR.,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        LIEUTENANT JACOBS, Investigator; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER; JANE DOE,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-01131-TSE-JFA)

        Submitted: July 25, 2023                                          Decided: July 28, 2023

        Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        William I. Marable, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John P. Dunnigan, Leslie A. Winneberger,
        HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6404       Doc: 12          Filed: 07/28/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               William I. Marable, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders granting summary

        judgment in favor of Defendant Lieutenant Jacobs, construing Marable’s later-received

        filing as a motion for reconsideration, and denying reconsideration. We dismiss the appeal

        in part and affirm in part.

               To the extent Marable seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary

        judgment, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal of that order. 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 summary judgment order on

        January 31, 2023. Marable filed the notice of appeal on April 10, 2023. * Because Marable

        failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal

        period, we dismiss the appeal as to the January 31 order.

               Marable’s notice of appeal was timely filed as to the district court’s order construing

        his filing as a motion for reconsideration and denying reconsideration. Confining our

        review to the issues raised in Marable’s informal brief, see Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d

        170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth

               *
                For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of
        appeal is the earliest date Marable 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
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6404         Doc: 12     Filed: 07/28/2023    Pg: 3 of 3

        Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”), we discern no

        reversible error. We therefore affirm the district court’s order. Marable v. Jacobs,

        No. 1:21-cv-01131-TSE-JFA (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 27, 2023 & entered Mar. 28, 2023).

              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 IN PART,
                                                                            AFFIRMED IN PART

                                                   3