Hammond v. Bush ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6897
JOHN EDWARD HAMMOND,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MAJOR D. BUSH; CAPTAIN R. ABSTON; LIEUTENANT B. HUNTER;
LIEUTENANT C. WILLIAMS, JR.; LIEUTENANT J. BENNETT;
LIEUTENANT D. HAROUFF; SARGENT J. JEFFREY; OFFICER M.
SAYPHENS; DIRECTOR JON E. OZMINT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (3:08-cv-03592-SB)
Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 7, 2010
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Edward Hammond, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel C. Weldon, TURNER,
PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Edward Hammond seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and granting summary judgment for the Defendants in
Hammond’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. 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 order was entered on the docket
on March 15, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed, at the
earliest, on May 24, 2010. * Because Hammond failed to file a
timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening
of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Hammond’s
motions for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral
*
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it 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).
2
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3