David Paul v. John Williams, No. 19-30379 (5th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-30379 Document: 00515213953 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/26/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 19-30379 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 26, 2019 DAVID P. PAUL, J.D., Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff - Appellant v. JOHN V. WILLIAMS, Medical Doctor, Defendant - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana 3:18-CV-646 Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM:* Appellant David Paul filed a pro se tort action against Appellee Dr. John Williams seeking relief for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). The magistrate judge dismissed Paul’s claim with prejudice because his claim prescribed, there was no basis for extending the one-year prescriptive period, and his pleadings failed to include a claim upon which relief could be granted. Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 19-30379 Document: 00515213953 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/26/2019 No. 19-30379 As an initial matter, we must examine the basis of jurisdiction, on our own motion if necessary. Hill v. City of Seven Points, 230 F.3d 167, 169 (5th Cir. 2000). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A), the notice of appeal in a civil case must be filed within thirty days of entry of judgment. The district court entered the final judgment dismissing the complaint on April 9, 2019. Therefore, the final day for filing a timely notice of appeal was May 9, 2019. The envelope which Paul used to FedEx overnight his notice of appeal indicates a shipping date of May 9, 2019, but the notice was stamped as received and filed in the Clerk’s Office on May 10, 2019. When set by statute, the time limitation for filing a notice of appeal in a civil case is jurisdictional. Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 138 S.Ct. 13, 17 (2017); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Accordingly, the lack of a timely notice mandates dismissal of the appeal. Robbins v. Maggio, 750 F.2d 405, 408 (5th Cir. 1985). Alternatively, we have reviewed the briefs, the applicable law, and the relevant portions of the record. The rulings of the district court are AFFIRMED for essentially the reasons explained in the district court’s April 9, 2019 dismissal order. 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.
