The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
03-7302•Paul W. Jones v. Lassiter, No. CA-02-897-5-F E.D.N.C. filed Aug. 6, 2003 & entered Aug. 11, 2003 . To…
03-7302Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJul 28, 2004
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7302
PAUL W. JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MELANIE LASSITER, R.N.; GADDY LASSITER,
Doctor; S. KNIGHT, Medical Administrator;
WILLIE SCOTT, Warden; WACKENHUT CORRECTIONAL
CORPORATION,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-897-5-F)
Submitted: March 19, 2004 Decided: July 28, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Paul W. Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Paul W. Jones appeals the district court’s order denying
his motions for change of venue and for reconsideration of its
previous order dismissing Jones’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint
for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
order denying the requested change of venue and reconsideration.
See Jones v. Lassiter, No. CA-02-897-5-F (E.D.N.C. filed Aug. 6,
2003 & entered Aug. 11, 2003). To the extent that Jones seeks to
appeal the court’s order dismissing his § 1983 action, his notice
of appeal is untimely. The court’s order dismissing Jones’s § 1983
action was entered on its docket on June 26, 2003. Jones’s notice
of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on August 18, 2003, which was
beyond the thirty-day appeal period. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(1)(A). Therefore, to the extent that Jones seeks to appeal
the district court’s order dismissing his § 1983 action, we dismiss
his appeal as untimely. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.