Rigoberto Teasley v. Manager Thomas Joyner, No. 13-7939 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7939 RIGOBERTO TEASLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MANAGER THOMAS JOYNER; SERGEANT RAGLAND, Defendants - Appellees, and CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WIGGINS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:11-ct-03057-BO) Submitted: March 19, 2014 Decided: April 7, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rigoberto Teasley, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Andrew Regulski, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rigoberto Teasley seeks to appeal the district court s order granting summary judgment to Appellees. dismiss the appeal as untimely filed. Appellees move to Because the district court was without authority to excuse the lateness of Teasley s appeal, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. 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). Further, a district court is without authority to alter or grant a party leave from complying with the procedural rules governing a timely appeal. various statute-based Id. at 213-15. Here, under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), Teasley s initial thirty-day appeal period expired on October 4, 2013. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(A). of the appeal period Teasley s time for seeking an extension under later on November 4, 2013. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C). See Fed. Rule 4(a)(5) expired thirty days Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i); Fed. Accordingly, Teasley s motion to extend the appeal period, filed at the earliest on November 5, 2013, 2 was one day late. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988). Because the district court was without authority to grant an untimely Rule 4(a)(5) motion, we conclude that his notice of appeal was untimely. courts have no See Bowles, 551 U.S. at 214 (stating that authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional rules); see also Goode v. Winkler, 252 F.3d 242, 245-46 (2d Cir. 2001) (holding that district court had no authority to consider pro se Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) motion filed over thirty days after expiration of initial appeal period). Because Teasley failed appeal, we dismiss the appeal. to file a timely notice of 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 We note that Teasley s motion for an extension of the appeal period could not have properly been considered as a timely Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a)(6) motion to reopen the time for filing an appeal. 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.
