Kenneth Ray, II v. Joe Driver, No. 11-6164 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on June 1, 2011.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6164 KENNETH WILLIAM RAY, II, Plaintiff Appellant, v. JOE DRIVER, Rec Officer; HAROLD FUSEYAMORE, Regional Counsel, BOYLES; MICHELLE T. Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (2:10-cv-00009-JPB-JSK) Submitted: February 8, 2012 Decided: February 16, 2012 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth William Ray, II, Appellant Pro Se. Alan McGonigal, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kenneth William Ray, II, seeks to appeal the district court s order adopting recommendation. the magistrate judge s report and We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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). timely filing of a notice jurisdictional requirement. of appeal in a civil case [T]he is a Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court s order was entered on the docket on November 17, 2010. January 31, 2011. The notice of appeal was deemed filed on Because Ray 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 the 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.
