Owen Silvious v. AFNI, Incorporated, No. 09-2164 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on May 26, 2011.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2164 OWEN FRANKLIN SILVIOUS, Plaintiff Appellant, v. AFNI, INCORPORATED, Defendant Appellee, and MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED; ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INCORPORATED; ACCOUNT SERVICES; APPLIED CARD BANK; CREDIGY RECEIVABLES, INCORPORATED; CREDIT ONE BANK; LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES, LP, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:07-cv-00145-FPS-JES) Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 4, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Owen Franklin Silvious, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Todd Booth, BOOTH & MCCARTHY, Bridgeport, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Owen Franklin Silvious seeks to appeal the district court s order recommendation of Incorporated s Silvious accepting the motion civil and the magistrate judge, summary judgment, for action. adopting We dismiss the report granting and appeal and AFNI, dismissing 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). [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 3, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed sixty-three days later, on October 5, 2009. * Because Silvious failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. oral argument because the facts * and legal We dispense with contentions are 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, 276 (1988). 3 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 4
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.
