Russell David, Sr. v. Jon Ozmint

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6725
RUSSELL LEON DAVID, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JON E. OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of
Corrections; DONALD R. SAMPSON, Dr.; A. G. ALEWINE, Dr.; K.
MCCULLOUGH, Nurse; S. SHERMAN, Nurse,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(9:10-cv-01976-RBH)
Submitted: September 11, 2012 Decided: September 14,2012
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Russell Leon David, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Mason Abram Summers,
RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Russell Leon David, Sr. seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, which advised summary judgment in favor of the
Defendants named in David’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. We
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice
of appeal was not timely filed.
In a civil case where the United States, a federal
agency, or a federal officer is not a party, the notice of
appeal must be filed no more than thirty days after the entry of
the district court’s final judgment or order, 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).
Here, the district court’s order was entered on the
docket on April 12, 2011. As the district court has
subsequently determined, David did not file a notice of appeal
as to that order until May 31, 2011. Because David 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
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3