Charlie Hardin v. Superintendent Roach, No. 23-6973 (4th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-6973 CHARLIE L. HARDIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SUPERINTENDENT ROACH; SUPERINTENDENT ALBRIGHT; SUPERINTENDENT CROWE; OFFICER ZANANY; SERGEANT GILLIS; SERGEANT COOPER; SERGEANT BENNETT; SERGEANT GLENWOOD; OFFICER CARTER; OFFICER GATHER; OFFICER DURHAM; OFFICER BATES; OFFICER WILSON; OFFICER GARDNER; OFFICER BROWN; SUPERINTENDENT H. CON; OFFICER THREAT; CAPTAIN FRINK; NURSE JACKSON; NURSE STEVIS or CLEVIS; WARDEN J. KERN-CORRELL; ASSOC. WARDEN B. COOPER; UNIT MANAGER WALKER; UNIT MANAGER RANES; OFFICER VEAGOS; OFFICER DEKITI; OFFICER CANON; OFFICER HOLLEY; OFFICER SMITH; OFFICER DOYE; OFFICER HARGROVE; OFFICER WASHINGTON; OFFICER SCOTT-LEE; OFFICER BRYAN; OFFICER WORTHY; SERGEANT ARTIS; SERGEANT WEBSTER; OFFICER PERRY; DR. GLORIA HARVEY; MR. FRASER; CASE MANAGER ALLEN; OFFICER MEDINA; OFFICER MAYFIELD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:23-ct-03070-D) Submitted: November 21, 2023 Decided: November 28, 2023 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charlie L. Hardin, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Charlie L. Hardin seeks to appeal the district court’s order and judgment denying his motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissing his civil action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. In civil cases, parties have 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 entered its order on August 8, 2023, and its judgment on August 9, 2023. Hardin filed the notice of appeal on September 12, 2023. * Because Hardin 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 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date Hardin could have delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). * 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.
