UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6200
ERVIN L. STREATER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PAT S. ROBINSON; J. R. ROWELL; EDDIE CATHEY; SCOTT STERMEN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:11-cv-00600-RJC)
Submitted: April 19, 2012 Decided: April 26, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Ervin L. Streater, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ervin L. Streater seeks to appeal both the district
court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and
the district court’s subsequent denial of his two motions to
amend his complaint.
We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Streater’s appeal
of the dismissal of his action because the notice of appeal was
not timely filed as to the district court’s dismissal order.
Parties in civil cases such as this one 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 dismissing Streater’s suit
was entered on the docket on December 20, 2011. The notice of
appeal was filed, at earliest, on January 27, 2012. * Neither of
Streater’s mid-January motions to amend his complaint can be
*
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on 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
(1988).
2
construed as a motion tolling the applicable thirty-day period
under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). We therefore lack jurisdiction
to consider Streater’s claims with respect to the district
court’s dismissal order.
As for Streater’s appeal of the district court’s
denial of his two motions to amend his complaint, we conclude
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
the motions, as amendment of the complaint would have been
futile. See Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426-28 (4th Cir.
2006) (en banc).
Accordingly, we dismiss Streater’s appeal as to the
district court’s dismissal order and affirm the district court’s
judgment with respect to Streater’s motions to amend his
complaint. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART
3