Brent Cook v. Sletton, No. 17-1479 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1479 BRENT W. COOK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SLETTON, Officer/Officer at Pamunkey, Defendant - Appellee, and PAMUNKEY REGIONAL JAIL, Housing Facility; JAMES WILLETT, Colonel/CJM Superintendent; DORITY, Sgt; BERRY, Sgt, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-01776-GBL-JFA) Submitted: October 19, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Decided: October 23, 2017 Brent William Cook, Appellant Pro Se. Jeremy David Capps, David Patrick Corrigan, George A. Somerville, HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia; Kyle Reese Elliott, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Brent W. Cook seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant Sletton on Cook’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We grant Sletton’s motion to 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 February 3, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed on March 21, 2017. Because Cook failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant the motion to 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 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.