UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6320
MYRON RODERICK NUNN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ALVIN W. KELLER, JR., Secretary of the N.C. Department of
Correction; CLARENCE J. DELFORGE, III, Deputy Attorney
General; ORLANDO F. HUDSON, Durham County Superior Court
Judge; J. B. ALLEN, Superior Court Judge; JIM HARDIN, Durham
County District Attorney; MICHAEL MOORE, Durham County
Assistant District Attorney; JAMES DORNFRIED, Durham County
Assistant District Attorney; BILL THOMAS, Private Attorney;
PHYLLIS TRANCHESE, Private Attorney; ELIZABETH COLEMAN GRAY,
NCPLS Attorney; JAMES BUTCH WILLIAMS, Private Attorney;
BRUCE T. CUNNINGHAM, JR., Private Attorney,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David
Schroeder, District Judge. (1:10-cv-00723-TDS-LPA)
Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Myron Roderick Nunn, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Myron Roderick Nunn seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. 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 December 1, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on February
15, 2011. ∗ Because Nunn 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
∗
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. Luck, 487 U.S. 266
(1988).
3
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
4