John Stritzinger v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 15-2004 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2004 JOHN S. STRITZINGER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; STATE OF TEXAS; DR. VYAS, Eastern States Hospital; DR. FRANCES TUNNEY, Charleston SC - Doctor; PATRICK D. BLAKE, Wilcox Savage - Norfolk Verizon Outside Counsel; JUDGE HANSEN, 2nd Judicial Circuit of Virginia; JUDGE WOOLARD, 2nd Judicial Circuit of Virginia; JUDGE HODGES, 2nd Judicial Circuit of Virginia; JUDGE HAMMONS, 2nd Judicial Circuit of Virginia Re Bond, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (3:15-cv-00658-TLW) Submitted: December 15, 2015 Before GREGORY Circuit Judge. and FLOYD, Decided: Circuit Judges, December 17, 2015 and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John S. Stritzinger, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Stritzinger seeks to appeal the district court’s orders adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his complaint and denying reconsideration. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded 30 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 denying the timely filed motion for reconsideration was entered on the docket on July 9, 2015. See Fed. R. Civ. 59(e); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). of appeal was filed on September 1, 2015. failed to extension appeal. dispense file or a timely reopening of notice the of Because Stritzinger appeal appeal The notice or period, to we obtain dismiss an the We deny the motion for leave to file electronically and with contentions oral are argument adequately because presented 2 the in facts the and legal 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.
