Randolph Bowden v. Stephen Sims

Case: 14-40791 Document: 00513475563 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2016

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

No. 14-40791 FILED
Summary Calendar April 21, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
RANDOLPH BOWDEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

STEPHEN SIMS; RAYMOND HENDRIX; DANIEL BATT; GRACELIA
RAMOS; LINDA RICHEY; ROBERT EASON; CALVIN WHEAT; FNU
MANNING, Captain; FNU RAYFORD, Major; FNU RODENBECK, Captain,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:13-CV-891

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Randolph Bowden, Texas prisoner # 1827604, filed a notice of appeal in
this civil action following the district court’s denial of his motion for injunctive
relief and the judgment dismissing the case without prejudice for failure to
prosecute and failure to obey an order. This court must examine the basis of
its own jurisdiction, sua sponte, if necessary. See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
 Case: 14-40791 Document: 00513475563 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2016

No. 14-40791

659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). A timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional
requirement in a civil case. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
Bowden’s notice of appeal was not timely. It was not filed within 30 days
of the district court’s order denying injunctive relief or the judgment dismissing
the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1). Even if Bowden’s
post-judgment motion for time to file objections were considered a motion
under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A) that served to suspend
the start of the period for filing a notice of appeal, the district court’s order
denying the motion was entered more than 30 days before the date of Bowden’s
notice of appeal. In light of the untimeliness of Bowden’s notice of appeal, we
lack jurisdiction over this appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.

2