Nasir Finnemen v. Delaware River Port Authority

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 15-2209
___________
NASIR FINNEMEN,
Appellant
v.
DELAWARE RIVER PORT AUTHORITY;
OFFICER KHARY BULLOCK
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil Action No. 1-13-cv-04802)
District Judge: Honorable Renee M. Bumb
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
February 17, 2016
Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and COWEN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 18, 2016)
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
1
Pro se litigant Nasir Finnemen appeals the District Court’s denial of his motion to
file an appeal out of time. We will affirm. 1
In 2013, Finnemen filed a civil rights complaint in U.S. District Court in Camden,
New Jersey, alleging excessive force against the Delaware River Port Authority and
Delaware River Port Authority Officer Khary Bullock. The alleged incident took place
October 3, 2009, and Finnemen filed his complaint August 3, 2013. The District Court
dismissed the complaint because the statute of limitations for bringing such actions is two
years, making the complaint almost two years late. The District Court later denied
Finnemen’s motion to reopen on February 27, 2014. Some nine months later, on
December 2, 2014, Finnemen filed a notice of appeal and a motion for leave to file the
appeal out of time.
The District Court denied Finnemen’s motion to appeal out of time, finding his
motion untimely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). In the alternative, the District Court
found that, even if Finnemen had filed a timely motion for an extension of the appellate
deadline, he had not shown excusable neglect or good cause as required by Fed. R. App.
P. 4(a)(5)(A).
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The District Court’s denial of
Finnemen’s Rule 4(a)(5) motion is subject to review for abuse of discretion. See
Ramseur v. Beyer, 921 F.2d 504, 506 (3d Cir. 1990).
1
Finnemen has filed a motion to file a supplement appendix. We grant that motion, and
we have reviewed Finnemen’s submission.
2
We find the District Court did not abuse its discretion. In this case, Finnemen has
not complied with the filing 30-day deadline for seeking an extension of time to appeal
under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). Finnemen’s motion is also outside the 180-day period for
reopening an appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). Therefore, we will affirm.
3