Dickson v. Cherry ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2367
JOHN M. DICKSON, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROY CHERRY, Superintendent; T. D. HATCHETT, Captain; L. NICHOLS,
Sergeant; KIM BUDD, Correctional Officer; S. PIERSON,
Correctional Officer; E. FELDER, Correctional Officer; WILLIAMS,
Correctional Officer; SWAIN, Correctional Officer; ALLEN,
Correctional Officer; JOHN/JANE DOE(S), Correctional Officers,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:10-cv-00224-RBS-DEM)
Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
John M. Dickson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Lawrence
Dumville, NORRIS, ST. CLAIR & LOTKIN, Virginia Beach, Virginia,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John M. Dickson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)
complaint and his subsequent motions for extension of time to
file a notice of appeal and for reconsideration under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b). Parties are accorded thirty 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 relief on Dickson’s
§ 1983 complaint was entered on November 2, 2010. Dickson filed
his notice of appeal on December 6, 2010. Because Dickson
failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an
extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss this
portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
With respect to the district court’s order denying
Dickson’s motion for extension of time to file a notice of
appeal and his motion for reconsideration, Dickson’s notices of
appeal were timely filed. We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
2
stated by the district court. Dickson v. Cherry, No. 2:10—cv-
00224-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 1, 2011 & entered Feb. 2,
2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART
3