Jeffrey Pennington v. Kershaw County ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2442
JEFFREY PENNINGTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KERSHAW COUNTY, South Carolina; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA;
KESHAW COUNTY SOUTH CAROLINA DETENTION CENTER; PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; LIEUTENANT MYERS; DARRELL
DRAKEFORD; JOHN DOES, 1-10; JACKSON; LAWSON; MCLEOD;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ALSTON; R. EUGENE HARTIS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:12-cv-01509-JFA-SVH)
Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 28, 2013
Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Pennington, Appellant Pro Se. H. Thomas Morgan, Jr.,
John Kennedy DuBose, III, Jonathan McLean Robinson, DUBOSE-
ROBINSON, P.C., Camden, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Pennington seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and
denying relief on his requests for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunctive relief. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006),
and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The portion of the
district court’s order denying a temporary restraining order is
neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss this aspect of the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The district court’s denial of a request for a
preliminary injunction, however, is immediately appealable.
28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Nevertheless, we dismiss this portion
of 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
2
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 June 25, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on November
19, 2012. Because Pennington 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
this portion of 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