UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6644
WILLIAM HENRY TAYLOR, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICER OLLIE, (MJO) (Security) Inmate Kitchen Supervisor;
MR. SAMUEL, Aramark Food Corporation (Kitchen) Inmate
Supervisor; M. S. PAMELA, Inmate Supervisor (Kitchen)
Aramark Food Corporation,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:09-cv-00320-MSD-JEB)
Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: September 3, 2010
Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Henry Taylor, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Henry Taylor, Jr., a Virginia prisoner, seeks
to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2006) action without prejudice. 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 January 29, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on April
23, 2010.* Because Taylor failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or to timely 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
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,
276 (1988).
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3