Opinion
22-6812 22-6813 22-6814
12-20-2022
DONTE CAUDLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NASH COUNTY JAIL, Defendant-Appellee DONTE CAUDLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KEISHA LONG, Nurse, Defendant-Appellee, and DR. A. ANDERSON; SHERIFF WEST TRIPP, Defendants. DONTE CAUDLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SHERIFF WEST TRIPP, Defendant-Appellee
Donte Caudle, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: December 15, 2022
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge; Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:20-ct-03003-D; 5:17-ct-03280-FL; 5:18-ct-03030-FL)
Donte Caudle, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Donte Caudle filed a single notice of appeal, listing three different district court proceedings in which he wishes to appeal. Caudle's notice of appeal does not identify any specific district court orders from which he intends to appeal. However, in each of the three district court proceedings, the most recent order or judgment was entered on the district court docket no later than June 2020. Accordingly, we dismiss all three appeals 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 most recent orders in these district court proceedings were entered no later than June 2020. Caudle filed the notice of appeal on June 22, 2022.[*] Because Caudle failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the consolidated appeals.
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
[*] For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the postmark date appearing on the envelope containing the notice of appeal is the earliest date Caudle 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).