Marion Sherrod v. Lawrence Parsons, No. 15-7990 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on July 26, 2016.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7990 MARION LAMONT SHERROD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LAWRENCE PARSONS; JEFFREY WALL; GOODWIN, Correctional Officer, KIERNAN SHANAHAN; K. SHANAHAN; K. Defendants - Appellees. No. 16-7415 MARION LAMONT SHERROD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LAWRENCE PARSONS; JEFFREY WALL; GOODWIN, Correctional Officer, KIERNAN Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:15-cv-00068-FDW) Submitted: March 7, 2017 Decided: March 10, 2017 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. No. 15-7990 dismissed, No. 16-7415 affirmed, by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marion L. Sherrod, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In Appeal No. 15-7990, Marion Lamont Sherrod seeks to appeal the district court’s orders, filed on June 1 and June 22, 2015, dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action and denying his motion to reconsider. We remanded the case to the district court for a determination of whether Sherrod’s notice of appeal was timely filed with prison officials, as the record before us did not conclusively reveal when Sherrod delivered the notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). district court, by order of October 3, 2016, On remand the made several specific factual findings and concluded that Sherrod did not timely file his notice of appeal. Sherrod appeals from the district court’s October 3 order in Appeal No. 16-7415, which has been consolidated with Appeal No. 15-7990. Parties are accorded 30 days after entry of the district court’s judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), with a few exceptions not relevant here. timely filing of a notice jurisdictional requirement.” 214 (2007). of appeal in a civil case “[T]he is a Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, The district court’s original orders were entered on the docket on June 1 and June 22, 2015. The district court found on remand, after receiving submissions from Sherrod and the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, that Sherrod did 3 not file a timely notice of appeal within the designated time period and in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1). We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error. 993, Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(6); see Ray v. Clements, 700 F.3d 1012 district (7th Cir. court’s determination). 2012) factual A (applying findings finding is clear in error prison “clearly review mailbox erroneous” to rule when the reviewing court “is left with the definite and firm conviction that a Bessemer mistake City, marks omitted). has 470 been U.S. committed.” 564, 573 Anderson (1985) v. (internal City of quotation Because we perceive no clear error in the district court findings, we affirm the district court’s October 3, 2016, order in No. 16-7415, and we must dismiss Sherrod’s untimely appeal in No. 15-7990 for lack of jurisdiction. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process. NO. 15-7990, DISMISSED; NO. 16-7415, AFFIRMED 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.
