Rodney Sansbury v. Lieutenant Riley

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6474
RODNEY NEIL SANSBURY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
LIEUTENANT RILEY,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
SANDRA HOLLAND,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (3:09-cv-01074-RMG)
Submitted: July 21, 2011 Decided: July 26, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rodney Neil Sansbury, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Neil Sansbury seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation to dismiss for failure to prosecute. 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 November 9, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on April 1,
2011. * Because Sansbury failed to file a timely notice of appeal
or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal. We deny Sansbury’s motions for a
certificate of appealability, to appoint counsel, and for
itemized proceedings at the Government’s expense. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
*
This is the date on which the prison mailroom stamped the
envelope containing the notice of appeal as received. Fed. R.
App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3