Chadwick-El v. Verizon Wireless ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7648
STEVE CARL CHADWICK-EL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
VERIZON WIRELESS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:09-
cv-01490-RWT)
Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 27, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steve Carl Chadwick-el, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steve Carl Chadwick-el seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil action
against Verizon Wireless. We dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
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 was entered on the docket
on June 25, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on or about
August 11, 2009. * Thus, the notice of appeal was filed outside
the thirty-day appeal period. Because Chadwick-el failed to
*
Because Chadwick-el is incarcerated, he is deemed to have
filed the notice of appeal the date he deposited it in the
prison mail system. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1). However, the
notice of appeal does not contain a declaration or notarized
statement reflecting that date, as required by Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 4(c)(1), and the post-mark date is
illegible. In determining the filing date, we have afforded
Chadwick-el the presumption that he tendered the notice of
appeal on August 11, 2009, five business days prior to this
court’s August 18, 2009 receipt thereof.
2
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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3