David R. Corbin v. Judge Talmadge Baggett, No. 17-1665 (4th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1665 DAVID R. CORBIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JUDGE TALMADGE BAGGETT; BILLY WEST, DISTRICT ATTORNEY; THE WILLIFORD LAW FIRM; ELLEN HANCOCK, TRIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COURT; CHRISTA BAKER, TRIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COURT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00129-CCE-LPA) Submitted: September 26, 2017 Decided: September 28, 2017 Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David R. Corbin, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David R. Corbin seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. 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 21, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed on May 24, 2017. Because Corbin 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.