Johnny Mack Cook v. Judge Douglas Sasser

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6550
JOHNNY MACK COOK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JUDGE DOUGLAS SASSER,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:21-hc-02057-D)
Submitted: November 22, 2022 Decided: November 29, 2022
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Johnny Mack Cook, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Johnny Mack Cook seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying Cook’s
application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 petition. 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 4, 2021. Cook filed the notice of
appeal on May 3, 2022.* Because Cook 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 Cook could have delivered the notice to prison officials for
mailing to the district court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266,
276 (1988).

-- 2 of 2 --