# Elder Locust v. ABC Board

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · February 29, 2016 · 633 F. App'x 200

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3181143

## Case

- **Full name:** Elder Deforrorra LOCUST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ABC BOARD; Bill Johnson, Director, City of Kinston Department of Public Safety; City of Kinston Public Safety, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 29, 2016
- **Citations:** 633 F. App'x 200
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Davis, Harris, Per Curiam, Shedd
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3181143

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1875

ELDER DEFORRORRA LOCUST,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

ABC BOARD; BILL JOHNSON, Director, City of Kinston
Department of Public Safety; CITY OF KINSTON PUBLIC SAFETY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (4:15-cv-00061-FL)

Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: February 29, 2016

Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elder Deforrorra Locust, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Christopher
Hart, SUMRELL, SUGG, CARMICHAEL, HICKS & HART, PA, New Bern,
North Carolina; Timothy Patrick Carraway, James P. Cauley, III,
CAULEY PRIDGEN, PA, Wilson, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Elder Deforrorra Locust seeks to appeal the district

court’s order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss Locust’s

civil suit for failure to state a claim. We dismiss the appeal

for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not

timely filed.

Parties are accorded 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’s order was entered on the docket on

August 12, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on

September 24, 2015. * Because Locust failed to file a timely

notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the

appeal period, we grant Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

*For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to
the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988). We note that Locust also filed a premature appeal on
August 4, 2015. This appeal is dismissed as interlocutory.

2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3181143. Public record. Not legal advice.