Timothy King-El v. Lonnie Meadows, No. 17-6341 (4th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6341 TIMOTHY D. KING-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LONNIE MEADOWS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:16-ct-03047-D) Submitted: July 27, 2017 Decided: July 31, 2017 Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy D. King-El, Appellant Pro Se. Sonny Sade Haynes, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Timothy D. King-El filed a notice of appeal in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action, seeking review of a decision of the district court. He failed, however, to properly “designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed” as required by Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B). Although he stated in his notice of appeal that he wished to appeal the district court’s order of March 13, 2017, there is no corresponding order on or near that date on the district court’s docket. In his informal brief, King-El claims he also seeks to appeal the district court’s order of January 27, 2017. Again, there is no corresponding district court order, and the docket sheet reveals that the district court has not entered any orders in KingEl’s case during 2017. Because it is impossible for us to ascertain the judgment or order that King-El wishes to appeal, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 176-77 (4th Cir. 2014). 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.