Jason Thomas Roberts v. NAPH CARE MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, Jail Medical Services; VIRGINIA BEACH JAIL

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7023
JASON THOMAS ROBERTS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NAPH CARE MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, Jail Medical Services;
VIRGINIA BEACH JAIL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:16-cv-00213-HEH-RCY)
Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016
Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jason Thomas Roberts, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jason Thomas Roberts seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action for failure
to comply with the court’s earlier order to return a collection
of fees form. 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
June 8, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on July 28, 2016.*
Because Roberts failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal. We deny Roberts’ motions for appointment of
counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
* 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.
266, 276 (1988).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --