Rudy Villanueva v. Mildred Rivera ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7490
RUDY VILLANUEVA, a/k/a Bird Road Rudy, a/k/a King Rudy,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MILDRED L. RIVERA, Warden FCI Estill; CHAPLAIN NEAL,
Supervisor of Religious Services,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY’S COMMITTEE; FEDERAL BUREAU OF
PRISONS,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(5:12-cv-00399-MGL)
Submitted: January 3, 2014 Decided: January 24, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rudy Villanueva, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Rudy Villanueva, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to Appellees on
Villanueva’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was
not timely filed.
When the United States or its officer or agency is a
party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty
days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or
order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 4, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed, at the
earliest, on September 13, 2013. Because Villanueva failed to
file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or
reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. ∗ We
∗
Although Villanueva filed a Rule 4(a)(6) motion to reopen,
the motion was not filed within the time period set forth in
that rule.
3
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
4