Keith Dunn v. City of Rocky Mount, No. 12-1693 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1693 KEITH OTIS DUNN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF ROCKY MOUNT, NORTH CAROLINA; DONALD MOSLEY, Officer, Rocky Mount Police Department, Individually and in his Official capacity; ROCKY MOUNT POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:10-cv-00028-FL) Submitted: November 30, 2012 Decided: December 20, 2012 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harold E. Lucas, Jr., Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. J. Nicholas Ellis, POYNER SPRUILL LLP, Rocky Mount, North Carolina; Chad W. Essick, POYNER SPRUILL LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Keith Otis Dunn seeks to appeal the district court s order granting constrained to summary judgment dismiss the to appeal the for appellees. lack of We are jurisdiction because Dunn s notice of appeal was not timely filed. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 213 (2007). 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, 551 U.S. at 214. Further, a district court is without authority to ignore or grant a party leave from complying with the various governing a timely appeal. statute-based procedural rules Id. at 213-15; see 28 U.S.C. § 2107 (2006). The district court s order denying Dunn s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion was entered on the docket on August 18, 2011. The thirty-day period in which to file a timely notice of appeal expired on September 19, 2011. Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C). After Dunn failed to do so, his time for seeking an extension of the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(5) began to run on September 2 20, 2011, and expired thirty days later on October 19, 2011. 28 U.S.C. § 2107(c); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i). Accordingly, Dunn s request for an extension of the appeal period, filed in the district court on October 20, 2011, was one day out of time. district court was Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(2). without authority to grant motion, Dunn s notice of appeal was untimely. U.S. at 214 (courts have no authority to Because the the untimely See Bowles, 551 create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional rules); Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(2); see also Goode v. Winkler, 252 F.3d 242, 245-46 (2d Cir. 2001) (district court had no authority to consider untimely pro se Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) motion). Because Dunn failed to file a timely notice of appeal, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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 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.
