John Smith v. A. Jamaludeen, No. 10-7763 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7763 JOHN KEITH SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. A. H. JAMALUDEEN, Doctor, Virginia Beach Correctional Center; PATRICIA CUNNINGHAM-ALLEN, HSA, Virginia Beach Correctional Center; K. MCWATERS, Director of Nurses, Virginia Beach Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00341-RLW) Submitted: July 21, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit Judges, July 25, 2011 and HAMILTON, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Keith Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Keith Smith seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (2006) complaint without prejudice. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty 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 16, 2010. December 21, 2010. * The notice of appeal was filed on Because Smith failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We further deny Smith s pending motions for appointment of counsel and to compel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 2 adequately presented in the materials before the 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.
