Jerome Brown, Sr. v. T. Seitz, No. 14-6759 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6759 JEROME JULIUS BROWN, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER T.R. SEITZ, #46, Vienna PD; VIENNA TOWN POLICE, Defendants - Appellees, and ADAM GOLHA, Magistrate; STAN BARRY, Sheriff, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:12-cv-00283-AWA-TEM) Submitted: October 9, 2014 Decided: October 20, 2014 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Judkins, BANCROFT, MCGAVIN, HORVATH & JUDKINS, Virginia, for Appellees. Julia Bougie PC, Fairfax, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jerome Julius Brown, Sr. seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. 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 March 31, 2014. 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on May 7, Because Brown failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny him leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny his pending motions as moot, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately Even assuming that Brown was incarcerated within the meaning of Fed. R. App. P. 4(c) and Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), when he filed his notice of appeal, the envelope containing the notice of appeal was post-marked May 5, 2014, and Brown did not show timely filing by a declaration in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 (2012) or by a notarized statement. 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.
