Charlie L. Hardin v. Superintendent Roach

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6973
CHARLIE L. HARDIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT ROACH; SUPERINTENDENT ALBRIGHT;
SUPERINTENDENT CROWE; OFFICER ZANANY; SERGEANT GILLIS;
SERGEANT COOPER; SERGEANT BENNETT; SERGEANT GLENWOOD;
OFFICER CARTER; OFFICER GATHER; OFFICER DURHAM; OFFICER
BATES; OFFICER WILSON; OFFICER GARDNER; OFFICER BROWN;
SUPERINTENDENT H. CON; OFFICER THREAT; CAPTAIN FRINK; NURSE
JACKSON; NURSE STEVIS or CLEVIS; WARDEN J. KERN-CORRELL;
ASSOC. WARDEN B. COOPER; UNIT MANAGER WALKER; UNIT
MANAGER RANES; OFFICER VEAGOS; OFFICER DEKITI; OFFICER
CANON; OFFICER HOLLEY; OFFICER SMITH; OFFICER DOYE; OFFICER
HARGROVE; OFFICER WASHINGTON; OFFICER SCOTT-LEE; OFFICER
BRYAN; OFFICER WORTHY; SERGEANT ARTIS; SERGEANT WEBSTER;
OFFICER PERRY; DR. GLORIA HARVEY; MR. FRASER; CASE MANAGER
ALLEN; OFFICER MEDINA; OFFICER MAYFIELD,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:23-ct-03070-D)
Submitted: November 21, 2023 Decided: November 28, 2023
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charlie L. Hardin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Charlie L. Hardin seeks to appeal the district court’s order and judgment denying
his motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissing his 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 August 8, 2023, and its judgment on August
9, 2023. Hardin filed the notice of appeal on September 12, 2023.* Because Hardin 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 Hardin 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).

-- 3 of 3 --