Arthur Harry Northrup, Jr. v. B. L. Albert; M. Jason Goudelock

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1097
ARTHUR HARRY NORTHRUP, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
B. L. ALBERT; M. JASON GOUDELOCK,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:09-cv-00041-RLV-DCK)
Submitted: May 8, 2012 Decided: May 16, 2012
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arthur Harry Northrup, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Hal F. Askins,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina;
Patrick Houghton Flanagan, Marsha Janelle Lyons, CRANFILL,
SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Arthur Harry Northrup, Jr., seeks to appeal the
district court’s order granting Defendants’ motions for summary
judgment in Northrup’s civil rights action. 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 December 20, 2011. Accordingly, the latest day for filing a
timely notice of appeal was Thursday, January 19, 2012. See
Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1). Northrup’s notice of appeal, however,
was not received for filing until Friday, January 20, 2012.
Because Northrup failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we are
constrained to dismiss the appeal as untimely. We also deny
leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --