UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2474
RONNIE CLARKE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PETERSBURG CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL; KENNETH L. PRITCHETT, Board
Chairman, Petersburg City Public School Board Member; STEVEN
L. PIERCE, SR., Vice Chair, Petersburg City Public School
Board Member; FRED B. WILSON, Petersburg City Public School
Board Member; KENNETH LEWIS, Dr., Petersburg City School
Board Member; ELSIE R. JARMON, Dr., Petersburg City Public
School Board Member; MARY JANE HENDRICKS, Petersburg City
Public School Board Member; BERNARD LUNDY, JR., Petersburg
City Public School Board Member; ALVERA PARRISH, Dr.,
Current Superintendent, Petersburg City Public School; JAMES
VICTORY, Dr., Former Superintendent and current Executive
Director ARGS; PETERSBURG CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL HUMAN RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT, Acting Director; PATRICK BINGHAM, Dr., Former
Human Resources Director, Petersburg City Public School
Human Resources Department; WILLIAM "BILL" RAWLES, Director,
Petersburg City Public School Technology Department; TRACIE
COLEMAN, Mrs., Budget and Finance Department Director,
Former Technology Director, Petersburg City Public School
Budget and Finance,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:11-cv-00164-REP)
Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 1, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronnie Clarke, Appellant Pro Se. Zachary D. Cohen, William
Woodul Tunner, THOMPSON MCMULLAN PC, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Clarke seeks to appeal the district court’s
order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss his claims brought
pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2003 & Supp.
2012). 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).
Furthermore, “[a] bare notice of appeal should not be construed
as a motion for extension of time, where no request for
additional time is manifest.” Shah v. Hutto, 722 F.2d 1167,
1168-69 (4th Cir. 1983) (en banc).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket
on October 24, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on
November 27, 2012. Because Clarke failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the
appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
4