Robert Carrol Davidson v. Jesse Francis Amos; Laquita R. Amos; Clyde H. Perdue

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1512
ROBERT CARROL DAVIDSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JESSE FRANCIS AMOS; LAQUITA R. AMOS; CLYDE H. PERDUE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (4:15-cv-00013-JLK)
Submitted: August 20, 2015 Decided: August 24, 2015
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Carrol Davidson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Robert Carrol Davidson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on
April 10, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on May 12, 2015,
one day after the appeal period expired.∗ Because Davidson
failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an
extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny his motions
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
∗ The 30th day fell on Sunday, May 10, 2015. Davidson
therefore had until Monday, May 11, 2015, to timely file a
notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --