Pringle v. Martin , 361 F. App'x 445 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2156
ROSA LEE PRINGLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DANIEL H. MARTIN, JR., a/k/a Daniel E. Martin, Sr., a/k/a
Former Judge Daniel E. Martin, Sr., Former Atty Daniel E.
Martin, Sr., Nickname Atty Danny Jr,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (2:08-cv-02799-PMD)
Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: December 28, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rosa Lee Pringle, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Rosa Lee Pringle seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint
and denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from
judgment. We dismiss.
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. 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).
Pringle filed her notice of appeal more than thirty days after
the entry of both the original judgment and the denial of
reconsideration. Further, she failed to properly move for an
extension of time or for reopening of the appeal period.
Therefore, we dismiss the appeal of these orders as untimely.
We dispense with oral 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
2