John Smith v. A. Jamaludeen

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7763
JOHN KEITH SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
A. H. JAMALUDEEN, Doctor, Virginia Beach Correctional
Center; PATRICIA CUNNINGHAM-ALLEN, HSA, Virginia Beach
Correctional Center; K. MCWATERS, Director of Nurses,
Virginia Beach Correctional Center,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (3:09-cv-00341-RLW)
Submitted: July 21, 2011 Decided: July 25, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Keith Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Keith Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint without
prejudice. 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 November 16, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on
December 21, 2010. * Because Smith failed to file a timely notice
of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period, we dismiss the appeal. We further deny Smith’s pending
motions for appointment of counsel and to compel. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
*
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to
the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266(1988).
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3