Robert Davidson v. Jesse Amos, No. 15-1512 (4th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1512 ROBERT CARROL DAVIDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JESSE FRANCIS AMOS; LAQUITA R. AMOS; CLYDE H. PERDUE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:15-cv-00013-JLK) Submitted: August 20, 2015 Decided: August 24, 2015 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Carrol Davidson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Carrol Davidson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 April 10, 2015. one day failed after to file The notice of appeal was filed on May 12, 2015, the a appeal timely period expired. ∗ notice of appeal Because or to Davidson obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny his motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument ∗ because the facts and legal The 30th day fell on Sunday, May 10, 2015. Davidson therefore had until Monday, May 11, 2015, to timely file a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1). 2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

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.