Christine Samuel v. James Dickey , 696 F. App'x 636 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                       UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-2352
    CHRISTINE SAMUEL, as Natural Parent and Guardian of CSD,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JAMES H. DICKEY; JAMES H. DICKEY LAW FIRM,
    Defendants - Appellants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
    Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:12-cv-02277-TLW)
    Submitted: August 24, 2017                                  Decided: August 28, 2017
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DIAZ, Circuit Judge. *
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James H. Dickey, Appellant Pro Se. Aaron Seth Jophlin, BELL LEGAL GROUP,
    Georgetown, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    *
    This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 46
    (d)
    (2012).
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    James H. Dickey seeks to appeal the district court’s orders granting a default
    judgment against him and denying his two Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions. We dismiss the
    appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
    Parties are accorded 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’s order was entered on the docket on October 21, 2016. The
    notice of appeal was filed on November 28, 2016. Because Dickey failed to file a timely
    notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny
    leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-2352

Citation Numbers: 696 F. App'x 636

Judges: Diaz, Gregory, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 8/28/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024