Jordan Mitchell v. Sergeant Green, No. 20-6624 (4th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6624 JORDAN NATHANIEL MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SERGEANT GREEN, Defendant - Appellee, and SERGEANT FLINT; NEIL GODFREE; STAFF MEMBER CLUMP; STAFF MEMBER DIVES; LIEUTENANT MOORE; DEPUTY HELMS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00566-CCE-LPA) Submitted: September 11, 2020 Before MOTZ, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Decided: September 17, 2020 Jordan Nathaniel Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Sonny Sade Haynes, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Jordan Nathaniel Mitchell seeks to appeal the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and denying his motion for reconsideration. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. In civil cases, parties have 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 entered its order on January 3, 2017. Mitchell filed the notice of appeal, at the earliest, on April 16, 2020. Because Mitchell failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal and deny his motion for appointment of counsel. 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 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.
