Rayvern Green v. Warden McCall

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7524
RAYVERN EARL GREEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN M. MCCALL; MICHAEL MCCALL; A. J. PADULA, Warden,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (6:13-cv-02486-JMC)
Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rayvern Earl Green, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rayvern Earl Green seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to
dismiss his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action against Defendants.
Green has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis
and a motion for a copy of Lee Correctional Institution’s log
books. We deny Green’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
and his motion for a copy of Lee Correctional Institution’s log
books, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
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 judgment was entered on the
docket on January 13, 2014. Green did not file his notice of
appeal until October 13, 2014. * Accordingly, Green’s notice of
appeal is untimely. Because Green failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the
appeal period, we deny his application for in forma pauperis
*
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988).
2
status and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We also
deny Green’s motion for a copy of Lee Correctional Institution’s
log books. 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
3