Darious Moore v. State of South Carolina , 548 F. App'x 902 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7462
DARIOUS LAMONT MOORE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SUPREME COURT, in the County of
Columbia; COURT OF APPEALS, in the County of Sumter,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (8:12-cv-03584-RMG)
Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: December 20, 2013
Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darious Lamont Moore, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darious Lamont Moore seeks to appeal the district
court’s text order denying Moore’s motion to compel discovery in
his previously dismissed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights
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 June 13, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed on September
10, 2013. * Because Moore 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
*
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
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3