UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1729
JOHN RODGERS BURNLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COLONEL BRYAN T. NORWOOD, Chief of Police for the City of
Richmond; JOHN VENUTI, Chief of Police - Virginia
Commonwealth University; HOWARD J. HICKS, Captain; WILLIAM
C. MEADOWS, Lieutenant; AMIRA SLEEM, #3076 Police Officer;
BENJAMIN TODERICO, #2614 Police Officer; UNKNOWN NAMED
POLICE OFFICERS FOR THE CITY OF RICHMOND; JOAN E. JONES;
WILLIAM P. WILSON; JEAN J. WILSON; HAZEL MILES; TYRONE M.
MILLER; MICHAEL G. MILLER; WALTER EDWARD BAKER; CITY OF
RICHMOND, MUNICIPALITY; CITY OF RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT;
ANDREW CARR,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:10-cv-00264-HEH)
Submitted: November 17, 2011 Decided: November 22, 2011
Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Rodgers Burnley, Appellant Pro Se. M. Janet Palmer, CITY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Richmond, Virginia; Milligan Grinstead
Goldsmith, Jeffrey Dean McMahan, Jr., William N. Federspiel,
Robert Michael Tyler, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
John Rodgers Burnley seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)
complaint. 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 August 4, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on July 11,
2011. Because Burnley failed to file a timely notice of appeal
or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal. We deny Burnley’s motion to strike. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3