UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6161
CHARLES D. WILLINGHAM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
G. CRUTCHFIELD, Asst. Supt Programs Staff; LYNN SUMMERS,
Supt of Hoke CI 4320; K. STAND BACK, Asst of Hoke CI 4320;
ROBERT C. LEWIS, Dir O.P.S. of N. Carolina; MEDICAL DEPT.;
MAILROOM STAFF,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:12-cv-00324-RJC)
Submitted: May 30, 2013 Decided: June 5, 2013
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles D. Willingham, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles D. Willingham seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his civil action under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). 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 November 21, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on
December 26, 2012. * Because Willingham failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or to 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
*
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,
276 (1988).
2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3