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)
15-2520•Russell F. Walker v. J.p. Thomas & Co. Inc.; Town of Aberdeen, North Carolina; Officer J. J. Smith
15-2520Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 29, 2016
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2520
RUSSELL F. WALKER,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
J.P. THOMAS & CO. INC.; TOWN OF ABERDEEN, NORTH CAROLINA;
OFFICER J. J. SMITH,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Joe L. Webster,
Magistrate Judge. (1:14-cv-00738-JLW)
Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: February 29, 2016
Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Russell F. Walker, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Russell F. Walker seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s
order dismissing his complaint with prejudice. 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
September 29, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on
December 7, 2015. Because Walker failed to file a timely notice
of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.