Sentellus McDonald v. Randle Jones

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6125
SENTELLUS MCDONALD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RANDLE JONES,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:14-ct-03028-BO)
Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 21, 2015
Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sentellus McDonald, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Sentellus McDonald seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). 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
November 10, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on January
26, 2015.* Because McDonald 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
* The notice of appeal is undated. For the purpose of this
appeal, we assume that the date of the postmark on the envelope
containing 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
(1988).

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --