Miguel Rivera-Alvarez v. MCI-H ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7416 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7416
MIGUEL A. RIVERA-ALVAREZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MCI-H; WARDEN GREGORY A. WERNER; ASST. WARDEN TODD A. HULL;
CHIEF SECURITY LAURA K. GOLLIDAY; OFFICER JOHN DOE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (1:22-cv-01861-SAG)
Submitted: March 21, 2023 Decided: March 24, 2023
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Miguel A. Rivera-Alvarez, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7416 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Miguel A. Rivera-Alvarez seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief
on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for
reconsideration. 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 denying reconsideration on October 17, 2022.
Rivera-Alvarez filed the notice of appeal on November 28, 2022. * Because Rivera-Alvarez
failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period, we dismiss the appeal and deny all pending motions.
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
*
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of
appeal is the earliest date Rivera-Alvarez could have delivered the notice to prison officials
for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276
(1988).
2