UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7990
MARION LAMONT SHERROD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LAWRENCE PARSONS; JEFFREY WALL; KIERNAN SHANAHAN; K.
GOODWIN, Correctional Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 16-7415
MARION LAMONT SHERROD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LAWRENCE PARSONS; JEFFREY WALL; KIERNAN SHANAHAN; K.
GOODWIN, Correctional Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:15-cv-00068-FDW)
Submitted: March 7, 2017 Decided: March 10, 2017
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
No. 15-7990 dismissed, No. 16-7415 affirmed, by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Marion L. Sherrod, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In Appeal No. 15-7990, Marion Lamont Sherrod seeks to
appeal the district court’s orders, filed on June 1 and June 22,
2015, dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action and denying
his motion to reconsider. We remanded the case to the district
court for a determination of whether Sherrod’s notice of appeal
was timely filed with prison officials, as the record before us
did not conclusively reveal when Sherrod delivered the notice of
appeal to prison officials for mailing. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). On remand the
district court, by order of October 3, 2016, made several
specific factual findings and concluded that Sherrod did not
timely file his notice of appeal. Sherrod appeals from the
district court’s October 3 order in Appeal No. 16-7415, which
has been consolidated with Appeal No. 15-7990.
Parties are accorded 30 days after entry of the district
court’s judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(1)(A), with a few exceptions not relevant here. “[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 original orders were entered
on the docket on June 1 and June 22, 2015. The district court
found on remand, after receiving submissions from Sherrod and
the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, that Sherrod did
3
not file a timely notice of appeal within the designated time
period and in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1).
We review the district court’s factual findings for clear
error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(6); see Ray v. Clements, 700 F.3d
993, 1012 (7th Cir. 2012) (applying clear error review to
district court’s factual findings in prison mailbox rule
determination). A finding is “clearly erroneous” when the
reviewing court “is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.” Anderson v. City of
Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Because we perceive no clear error in the
district court findings, we affirm the district court’s October
3, 2016, order in No. 16-7415, and we must dismiss Sherrod’s
untimely appeal in No. 15-7990 for lack of jurisdiction. 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 in the decisional process.
NO. 15-7990, DISMISSED;
NO. 16-7415, AFFIRMED
4