Clayton Williams v. MS. DENISE GELSINGER, Roxbury Correctional Institution

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7421
CLAYTON WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MS. DENISE GELSINGER, Roxbury Correctional Institution;
SCOTT S. OAKLEY, Executive Director, Inmate Grievance
Office,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:12-cv-01875-JFM)
Submitted: November 13, 2012 Decided: November 16, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clayton Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Clayton Williams, a Maryland prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order dismissing his civil action under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2006). 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 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket
on July 2, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on August 12,
2012.* Because Williams 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
* 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 (1988).

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --