Opinion
21-7698
08-01-2022
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ARKALGUD LAKSHMINARASIMHA, Defendant-Appellant.
Arkalgud N. Lakshminarasimha, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: March 24, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:17-mj-01775-BR-1)
Arkalgud N. Lakshminarasimha, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Arkalgud N. Lakshminarasimha seeks to appeal the district court's order remanding his action to state court. 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 September 1, 2017. Lakshminarasimha filed the notice of appeal on November 28, 2021.[*] Because Lakshminarasimha failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.
We deny Lakshminarasimha's motions for judicial notice; to consolidate cases; for an emergency show cause hearing and to compel; to stay or vacate prefiling injunction order; for emergency relief from emergency judge; for appropriate relief and remedy; and for emergency review and to answer. 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 date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date Lakshminarasimha could have delivered the notice to jail officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).