Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
David MEYERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Warden Jeffrey KISER; Marcus Elam; J. Fannin; J. D. Bentley; Edward Gwinn; C. Stanley; M. Counts; L. Mullins; F. Stanley; T. Dorton; James Jones, U.S. Judge; K. Counts; W. Swiney; Glen Conrad, U.S. Judge; R. Ballou, U.S. Magistrate Judge; Tammy Barbetto; J. King; A. Clevinger; Paul Haymes; B4 Unit Manager Duncan; A. Galihar; Gail Jones; Keith Dawkins; Unknown Officers; C. Dudley; Geraldine Baker, a/k/a Geraldine Barker; D. Tate; J. Messer; S. Escoffery; Fiscal Tech, Defendants - Appellees.
David Meyers, a Virginia inmate and three-striker, has filed a consolidated notice of appeal, but did not designate the order he seeks to appeal. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B), a notice of appeal must specify the judgment or order being appealed. We construe this rule liberally, “asking whether, the putative appellant has manifested the intent to appeal a specific judgment or order and whether the affected party had notice and an opportunity fully to brief the issue.” Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 176 (4th Cir. 2014). “This principle of liberal construction does not, however, excuse noncompliance with the Rule.” Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248, 112 S.Ct. 678, 116 L.Ed.2d 678 (1992). Because the dictates of Rule 3 are jurisdictional, each requirement must be satisfied as a prerequisite to appellate review. Id. In his one-page consolidated notice of appeal, Meyers fails to indicate the order being appealed. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction.
Because Meyers fails to specify the order being appealed, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We also deny as moot Meyers’ motion for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of fees under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 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
PER CURIAM:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-6907
Decided: September 25, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)