UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6355
EMMANUEL LEE MCGRIFF EL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JUDGE WILLIAM BLAND; MATT DELBRIDGE, District Attorney; JOHN DOE
1; JOHN DOE 2,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:20-ct-03008-FL)
Submitted: February 28, 2022 Decided: March 10, 2022
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Emmanuel Lee McGriff El, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Emmanuel Lee McGriff El seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). We
previously remanded to the district court for a determination of whether McGriff El
satisfied the requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) to reopen the appeal period. McGriff
El v. Bland, 853 F. App’x 884 (4th Cir. 2021) (No. 21-6355). On remand, the district court
reopened the appeal period in accordance with Rule 4(a)(6) and directed McGriff El to
refile his notice of appeal by August 26, 2021, but McGriff El failed to refile his notice of
appeal until September 1, 2021.
Parties are accorded 30 days after 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 Rule 4(a)(6). Rule
4(a)(6) authorizes the reopening of the appeal period for 14 days if certain requirements
are met. “[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 on
remand, entered August 12, 2021, reopened the appeal period pursuant to Rule 4(a)(6) and
directed McGriff to file a notice of appeal within 14 days. McGriff El filed his notice of
appeal on September 1, 2021. * Because McGriff El failed to file a timely notice of appeal
or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.
*
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of
appeal is the earliest date McGriff El could have delivered the notice to prison officials for
mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
2
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