UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6604
JOHN E. HARGROVE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JACOB FULLER; NURSE ERIN; NURSE JESSICA; DR. JOE; KING, C/O;
DR. EDWARDS; DR. JAMES; MILLER, C/O,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
PRIME CARE MEDICAL INCORPORATED; EASTERN REGIONAL JAIL;
CHAD; RUDLOFF,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:08-cv-00132-IMK-JSK)
Submitted: March 19, 2012 Decided: April 3, 2012
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John E. Hargrove, Appellant Pro Se. John Dorsey Hoffman,
FLAHERTY, SENSABAUGH & BONASSO, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia;
Philip Cameron Petty, ROSE PADDEN & PETTY, LC, Fairmont, West
Virginia; Chad Marlo Cardinal, Charleston, West Virginia;
Frederick W. Goundry, III, VARNER & GOUNDRY, Frederick,
Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
John E. Hargrove seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
and dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)
complaint. Following two limited remands to the district court
to address the timeliness of Hargrove’s notice of appeal, 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 amended judgment was entered on
the docket on February 10, 2010. The notice of appeal was
filed, at the earliest, on April 12, 2010. * Because Hargrove
failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an
extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the
*
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the envelope in which Hargrove mailed 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. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
3
appeal. 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
4