Darnell Simmons v. Cape Fear Community College, No. 16-2128 (4th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2128 DARNELL JOYCE ELAINE SIMMONS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CAPE FEAR COMMUNITY COLLEGE; MARIA COOK; TOMMY HERRING; RHONDA TIGHE; KEN SEINO, JOYCE SPEARS; Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:15-cv-00214-BO) Submitted: February 16, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Decided: DUNCAN, February 21, 2017 Circuit Judge, and Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darnell Joyce Elaine Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. William Joseph Austin, Jr., WARD & SMITH, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Darnell Joyce Elaine Simmons seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). this We action dismiss pursuant the to appeal 28 for U.S.C. 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 November 12, 2015. September 29, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on Because Simmons failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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 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.