Silvious v. AFNI, Inc.

414 F. App'x 536
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 4, 2011
Docket09-2164
StatusUnpublished

This text of 414 F. App'x 536 (Silvious v. AFNI, Inc.) 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
Silvious v. AFNI, Inc., 414 F. App'x 536 (4th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Owen Franklin Silvious seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting and adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting AFNI, Incorporated’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissing Silvious’ civil action. 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on August 3, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed sixty-three days later, on October 5, 2009. * Because Silvious failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before *537 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

*

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, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).

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

Related

Houston v. Lack
487 U.S. 266 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Bowles v. Russell
551 U.S. 205 (Supreme Court, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
414 F. App'x 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silvious-v-afni-inc-ca4-2011.