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.
William K. DIXON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Frank B. BISHOP, Jr., Warden NBCI; R. S. Roderick, CMM & Acting Warden; Jeff Nines, Assistant Warden; Dayena M. Corcoran, Commissioner; William S. Bohrer, Security Chief; Jason L. Harbaugh, Captain; Mark J. Carter, IID Exec. Dir.; Evan Orndorff; Jared Zais; Brandon Cable; WM Gillian; Jeremy Crites; Robert Cross; Vaughn Whiteman; Jamie Farris, Hearing officer; Nurse Tammy; Anthony Frentzel, Jr., Sergeant; Leon Goodrich; Gary Drozda; David Ellifritz; Gregory Bean; John Doe Wilt; John Doe Dolly; Christel V. Kelley; C. Gilpen; Coralyn Price; J. Most; A.R.P. Coordinator Jack Johns, Lieutenant; Jane Doe Miller, Female officer in charge O.I.C., Defendants - Appellees.
William K. Dixon seeks to appeal the district court's order granting the Correctional Defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, and dismissing the claims against the remaining Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).
The district court entered its order on February 24, 2021. Dixon filed the notice of appeal on March 28, 2021.* Because Dixon 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
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE. For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date that Dixon 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, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
PER CURIAM:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Thank you for your feedback!
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. 21-6512
Decided: September 21, 2021
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)