Roymad McDaniel v. Jacob Saxon ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 20-6725
    ROYMAD SHAQUIL MCDANIEL,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    JACOB SCOTT SAXON; K-9 MAGNUM; RICHARD A. FINCH, JR.;
    ANDERSON CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
    Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:18-cv-01939-RMG)
    Submitted: September 24, 2020                               Decided: September 29, 2020
    Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Roymad Shaquil McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Todd Coffee, LOGAN, JOLLY &
    SMITH, LLP, Anderson, South Carolina; Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDONALD,
    PATRICK, POSTON, HEMPHILL & ROPER, LLC, Greenwood, South Carolina, for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Roymad Shaquil McDaniel seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the
    magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint.
    We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely
    filed.
    In civil cases, parties have 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 entered its order on December 2, 2019. McDaniel filed the notice
    of appeal, at the earliest, on February 20, 2020. Because McDaniel 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 before this court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-6725

Filed Date: 9/29/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/29/2020