Carawan v. Helms

699 F. App'x 241
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedOctober 23, 2017
DocketNo. 17-6545
StatusPublished

This text of 699 F. App'x 241 (Carawan v. Helms) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Carawan v. Helms, 699 F. App'x 241 (4th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Carawan, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on October 25, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed at the earliest, on January 1, 2017. Because Carawan failed to file a timely notice of appeal and because the district court denied his motion for an extension of time, we 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bowles v. Russell
551 U.S. 205 (Supreme Court, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
699 F. App'x 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carawan-v-helms-ca4-2017.