John Burnley v. Bryan Norwood, No. 11-1729 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1729 JOHN RODGERS BURNLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COLONEL BRYAN T. NORWOOD, Chief of Police for the City of Richmond; JOHN VENUTI, Chief of Police Virginia Commonwealth University; HOWARD J. HICKS, Captain; WILLIAM C. MEADOWS, Lieutenant; AMIRA SLEEM, #3076 Police Officer; BENJAMIN TODERICO, #2614 Police Officer; UNKNOWN NAMED POLICE OFFICERS FOR THE CITY OF RICHMOND; JOAN E. JONES; WILLIAM P. WILSON; JEAN J. WILSON; HAZEL MILES; TYRONE M. MILLER; MICHAEL G. MILLER; WALTER EDWARD BAKER; CITY OF RICHMOND, MUNICIPALITY; CITY OF RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT; ANDREW CARR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:10-cv-00264-HEH) Submitted: November 17, 2011 Decided: November 22, 2011 Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Rodgers Burnley, Appellant Pro Se. M. Janet Palmer, CITY ATTORNEY S OFFICE, Richmond, Virginia; Milligan Grinstead Goldsmith, Jeffrey Dean McMahan, Jr., William N. Federspiel, Robert Michael Tyler, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: John order court s Rodgers denying complaint. We Burnley relief dismiss the seeks on to his appeal 42 for appeal U.S.C. lack the district ยง 1983 of (2006) 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 August 4, 2010. 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on July 11, Because Burnley failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Burnley s motion to strike. dispense argument with oral because the facts and We legal contentions are 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.
