Delvin Stafford v. Sergeant Stout; Captain Rogers; Officer Land

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6766
DELVIN STAFFORD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SERGEANT STOUT; CAPTAIN ROGERS; OFFICER LAND,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cv-00731-WO-LPA)
Submitted: November 19, 2024 Decided: November 22, 2024
Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Delvin Stafford, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen E. Carroll, James Demarest Secor, III,
GUILFORD COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Delvin Stafford seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting in part and denying in part as moot
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil
action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not
timely filed.
In civil cases, parties have 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 entered its order on July 24, 2023, and the appeal period expired
on August 23, 2023. Stafford filed the notice of appeal on December 12, 2023.* Because
Stafford 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 materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of
appeal is the earliest date Stafford could have delivered the notice to prison officials for
mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

-- 2 of 2 --