Forrest Satterfield v. Johnnie Newton, No. 14-1408 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1408 FORREST SATTERFIELD, Plaintiff Appellant, and JOAN MOORE, Plaintiff, v. JOHNNIE NEWTON; TONYA MORROW, EEOC; REUBEN Governor, NEWTON; NANCY DANIELS, JR., CHAPMAN, EEOC; AVA EEOC; PAT MCCORY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:14-cv-00016-MR-DLH) Submitted: July 24, 2014 Before FLOYD and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: July 28, 2014 Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Forrest Satterfield, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Forrest Satterfield seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for failure to state a claim. 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 January April 24, 24, 2014. 2014. The notice Because Satterfield of appeal failed to was file filed a on 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 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.
