Jordan Mitchell v. Sergeant Green ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 20-6624
    JORDAN NATHANIEL MITCHELL,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    SERGEANT GREEN,
    Defendant - Appellee,
    and
    SERGEANT FLINT; NEIL GODFREE; STAFF MEMBER CLUMP; STAFF
    MEMBER DIVES; LIEUTENANT MOORE; DEPUTY HELMS,
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
    Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00566-CCE-LPA)
    Submitted: September 11, 2020                              Decided: September 17, 2020
    Before MOTZ, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jordan Nathaniel Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Sonny Sade Haynes, WOMBLE BOND
    DICKINSON (US) LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Jordan Nathaniel Mitchell seeks to appeal the district court’s orders granting
    summary judgment in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action and denying his motion for
    reconsideration. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal
    was not timely filed.
    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 order on January 3, 2017. Mitchell filed the notice of
    appeal, at the earliest, on April 16, 2020. Because Mitchell failed to file a timely notice of
    appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal
    and deny his motion for appointment of counsel. 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-6624

Filed Date: 9/17/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/22/2020