Michael Battle v. Lowell Mcadams, No. 19-1973 (4th Cir. 2019)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1973 MICHAEL L. BATTLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LOWELL MCADAMS; HENRY ADAMSON; TISHAUN OPHELIA; CATHERINE O. SAPP; TORRI A. THOUSAND; WILLIAM L. HORTON, JR.; JOHN G. STRATTON; KENNETH DIXON; SCOTT A. NUNES; VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:18-cv-00289-MSD-RJK) Submitted: November 19, 2019 Decided: November 21, 2019 Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael L. Battle, Appellant Pro Se. Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Betty S.W. Graumlich, REED SMITH, LLP, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael L. Battle seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his civil 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 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 August 5, 2019. The notice of appeal was filed on September 5, 2019. Because Battle failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant Appellees’ motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal. 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 2

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.