Myron Nunn v. Ricky Matthews, No. 15-6469 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6469 MYRON RODERICK NUNN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RICKY MATTHEWS; COLBERT L. RESPASS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:14-ct-03150-D) Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: May 27, 2015 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Myron Roderick Nunn, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Myron Roderick Nunn seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. 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 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). notice of appeal requirement.” in a civil “[T]he timely filing of a case is a jurisdictional Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on December 23, 2014. 2015. * The notice of appeal was filed on March 20, Because Nunn failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are * adequately presented in the 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 (1988). 2 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.
