Curtis King v. Officer Yancey Young , 589 F. App'x 206 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7226
CURTIS L. KING,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICER YANCEY YOUNG,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
JON OZMINT; WARDEN CARTLEDGE; MAJOR LEWIS; CAPT. MURSIER;
LT. STEVEN; LT. CROUTCH; SGT. MACKY; SGT. WRIT; OFC.
CURHLEY; DOCTOR MCCREE; RN CRAWFORD; RN ANDREW; RN BLACK;
CYNTHIA CHERNECKI; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Known and unknown officials in official and individual
capacity security medical; THOMAS A. MOORE, Medical
Director,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(0:11-cv-01455-RBH)
Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 20, 2015
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Curtis L. King, Appellant Pro Se. Kay Gaffney Crowe, BARNES,
ALFORD, STORK & JOHNSON, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Curtis L. King seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice
of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty 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 final order dismissing the § 1983
complaint with prejudice was entered on the docket on June 16,
2014. The notice of appeal was filed on July 29, 2014. * Because
King 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
*
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the envelope in which King mailed his notice of
appeal is the earliest date the document could have been
properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court.
Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
3
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
4