Andrew Davis v. Daniel Fish, No. 21-1950 (4th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-1950 ANDREW C. DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DR. DANIEL FISH, Psychiatrist; CHASTITY STRAUGHTER, Social Work; MADY, Psychology Intern; NELLIE CAMPBELL, Charge Nurse, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:21-cv-00276-D) Submitted: December 16, 2021 Decided: December 17, 2021 Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew C. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Andrew Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his civil action without prejudice for failing to file an application to proceed without prepayment of fees or pay the filing fees, file a complaint, provide a financial disclosure statement, provide a civil cover sheet, and provide a notice of self-representation. * 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 July 19, 2021. Davis filed the notice of appeal on August 27, 2021. Because Davis failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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 We conclude that the district court’s order dismissing Davis’ action without prejudice is an appealable final order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that dismissal without prejudice may be final if dismissal indicates that no amendment to complaint could cure the defects). * 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.
