UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1783
RONNIE CLARKE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PETERSBURG CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00239-REP)
Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 24, 2014
Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronnie Clarke, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Clarke seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Clarke
filed the motion along with a complaint alleging that Defendant
Petersburg City Public Schools discriminated and retaliated
against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012). Clarke
has also moved to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. We deny
Clarke’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and 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).
Furthermore, “[a] bare notice of appeal should not be construed
as a motion for extension of time, where no request for
additional time is manifest.” Shah v. Hutto, 722 F.2d 1167,
1168-69 (4th Cir. 1983) (en banc).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket
on July 1, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on August 5,
2
2014. Clarke failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain
an extension or reopening of the appeal period. Accordingly, we
deny Clarke’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3