Sentellus McDonald v. Sgt. Nicholson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6140
SENTELLUS MCDONALD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SGT. NICHOLSON,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:13-ct-03061-D)
Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: April 1, 2014
Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 (2006) complaint
as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012) and,
alternatively, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
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 September 19, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed, at the
earliest, on January 21, 2014.* 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
* Although an inmate’s notice of appeal ordinarily is deemed
filed on the date he delivered it to prison authorities for
mailing to the court, Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988),
McDonald’s notice of appeal does not indicate the date on which
this act occurred. We conclude, however, that the notice of
appeal can be deemed filed no earlier than January 21, the date
McDonald signed the document.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --