UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6115
JERRY L. OLIVER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAPTAIN MYERS; DR. C. SCHNEIDER; SERGEANT GIBBS; MS.
COLEMAN; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER REEVES; INV. SERGEANT STOOTS;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FOUNTAIN; MR. GILES; SERGEANT LYNCHARD;
WARDEN DILLMAN; OPERATIONS OFFICER M. GREY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior
District Judge. (7:08-cv-00558-jct-mfu)
Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 8, 2009
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerry L. Oliver, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerry L. Oliver seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 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, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the
appeal period, 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, __, 127 S. Ct.
2360, 2366 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket
on December 12, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on
January 16, 2009. * Because Oliver 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
*
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
Oliver alleges to have placed his notice of appeal in the prison
mail system 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
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3