Opinion
22-7037
12-20-2022
JOHN WILLIE CARTER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE GEO GROUP; JOE JEFFERSON, Facility Manager; WARDEN BRACKON, Warden at Lawrenceville Correctional Center; HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees.
John Willie Carter, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: December 15, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:22-cv-00178-AWA-DEM)
John Willie Carter, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Willie Carter, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to comply with the court's prior order. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
In civil cases, parties have 30 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 entered its order on July 13, 2022. Carter filed the notice of appeal on August 16, 2022.[*] Because Carter 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 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
[*] Carter certified that he delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing to the court on August 16, 2022. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).