Jonathan Harris v. City of Charlotte , 706 F. App'x 812 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-2053
JONATHAN HARRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
JERAMIE BARIDEAUX,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF CHARLOTTE; RODNEY MONROE, Chief; JOHN C. GORROD,
Sergeant; MICHAEL R. BODENSTEIN, Officer; MICHAEL C. WALLIN,
Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:16-cv-00146-GCM)
Submitted: December 19, 2017 Decided: December 21, 2017
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathan Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Edward Peterson, CITY ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE, Charlotte, North Carolina; Ronald L. Gibson, RUFF BOND COBB WADE &
BETHUNE, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Jason Robert Benton, PARKER, POE,
ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Lori R. Keeton, LAW
OFFICES OF LORI KEETON, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s orders granting summary
judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) claims
and related state law claims. 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 was entered on the docket on August 8, 2017. The
notice of appeal was filed on September 8, 2017. Because Harris failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 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
3