Sharif Moore v. Jones County, No. 23-6668 (4th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-6668 SHARIF HAKIM MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JONES COUNTY; CRAVE COUNTY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:22-ct-03167-D) Submitted: November 16, 2023 Decided: November 22, 2023 Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sharif Hakim Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sharif Hakim Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice his § 1983 complaint and subsequent order denying his motion for leave to amend the complaint. We dismiss in part and affirm in part. We dismiss Moore’s appeal of the dismissal judgment 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 December 12, 2022. Moore filed the notice of appeal on July 4, 2023. Because Moore failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal of the judgment dismissing the action. Moore also appeals the district court’s order denying his postjudgment motion for leave to amend his complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Moore v. Jones Cnty., No. 5:22-ct-03167D (E.D.N.C. June 7, 2023). 2 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 IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART 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.
