Opinion
No. 17-2412
04-02-2018
RONNIE CLARKE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PETERSBURG SCHOOL BOARD, Defendant - Appellee, and KENNETH L. PRITCHETT, School Board Vice-Chair; STEVEN L. PIERCE, SR., School Board Vice-Chair; MARCUS J. NEWSOME, Superintendent; SHELLY BAZEMORE, Defendants.
Ronnie Clarke, Appellant Pro Se. Jeremy David Capps, Lisa H. Leiner, HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, P.C., Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:17-cv-00085-JAG) Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie Clarke, Appellant Pro Se. Jeremy David Capps, Lisa H. Leiner, HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, P.C., Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Clarke seeks to appeal the district court's order granting the Petersburg School Board's motion to dismiss his claims brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2012 & Supp. 2017). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded 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's order was entered on the docket on August 7, 2017. Clarke's notice of appeal was filed on December 11, 2017. 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 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED