Malcolm Wright v. Charles McCurry, No. 08-6972 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6972 MALCOLM WRIGHT, a/k/a Malcolm Y. Azariah, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHARLES W. MCCURRY; JOHN DOE, #1; ROBERT UHREN, M.D.; MCCLELLEN, (first name unknown); CAPELUPPO, (first name unknown), Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00206-GCM) Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 28, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Malcolm Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth F. Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, YOUNG, MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Malcolm Wright seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (2000) complaint. 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). and jurisdictional. This appeal period is mandatory Browder v. Dir., Dep t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court s order was entered on the docket on May 18, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on May 28, 2008.* Because Wright 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 Wright s motion for appointment of counsel. We with dispense oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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 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 (1988). - 2 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
