John Stritzinger v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2004
JOHN S. STRITZINGER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; STATE OF TEXAS; DR. VYAS, Eastern
States Hospital; DR. FRANCES TUNNEY, Charleston SC - Doctor;
PATRICK D. BLAKE, Wilcox Savage - Norfolk Verizon Outside
Counsel; JUDGE HANSEN, 2nd Judicial Circuit of Virginia;
JUDGE WOOLARD, 2nd Judicial Circuit of Virginia; JUDGE
HODGES, 2nd Judicial Circuit of Virginia; JUDGE HAMMONS, 2nd
Judicial Circuit of Virginia Re Bond,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (3:15-cv-00658-TLW)
Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 17, 2015
Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John S. Stritzinger, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Stritzinger seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss
his complaint and denying reconsideration. 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 denying the timely filed motion
for reconsideration was entered on the docket on July 9, 2015.
See Fed. R. Civ. 59(e); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). The notice
of appeal was filed on September 1, 2015. Because Stritzinger
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 the motion for leave to file electronically and
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3