Opinion

Mark Dowdy v. Commonwealth of Virginia

  • 473 F. App'x 234
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
May 10, 2012
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Wilkinson, King, Diaz
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 24.7%

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7612

MARK RYLAND DOWDY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; CHERYL BROWN; DAFNEY BROWN; A. JOHN

VOLLINO; JUSTIN SHELTON; CYNTHIA L. MCCOY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District

Judge. (7:11-cv-00492-MFU-RSB)

Submitted: April 18, 2012 Decided: May 10, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Ryland Dowdy, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mark Ryland Dowdy seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)

complaint as frivolous. We dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty 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 October 25, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on

November 27, 2011. * Because Dowdy 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

*

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).

2

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.