Charles Willingham v. G. Crutchfield, No. 13-6161 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6161 CHARLES D. WILLINGHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. G. CRUTCHFIELD, Asst. Supt Programs Staff; LYNN SUMMERS, Supt of Hoke CI 4320; K. STAND BACK, Asst of Hoke CI 4320; ROBERT C. LEWIS, Dir O.P.S. of N. Carolina; MEDICAL DEPT.; MAILROOM STAFF, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:12-cv-00324-RJC) Submitted: May 30, 2013 Decided: June 5, 2013 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles D. Willingham, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles court s order D. Willingham dismissing § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). his We seeks civil dismiss to appeal action the the under appeal district 28 for U.S.C. 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 21, 2012. December 26, 2012. * The notice of appeal was filed on Because Willingham 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 * 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, 276 (1988). 2 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.