Mark Dowdy v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 11-7612 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7612 MARK RYLAND DOWDY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; CHERYL BROWN; DAFNEY BROWN; A. JOHN VOLLINO; JUSTIN SHELTON; CYNTHIA L. MCCOY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District Judge. (7:11-cv-00492-MFU-RSB) Submitted: April 18, 2012 Decided: May 10, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Ryland Dowdy, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mark Ryland Dowdy seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint as frivolous. 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 October 25, 2011. November 27, 2011. * The notice of appeal was filed on Because Dowdy 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 * 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 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.