Moody v. Eagleton

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6890
JAMES P. MOODY, JR.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden; MICHAEL BEINOR, Doctor; KIMBERLY C.
GASTIN, LPN; AMY SMITH; ADRIENN L. FULLER, in their
individual capacities and in their official capacities,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (9:09-cv-01480-CMC)
Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 30, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James P. Moody, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Bradford Cary Andrews;
Samuel F. Arthur, III, AIKEN, BRIDGES, NUNN, ELLIOTT & TYLER,
PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James P. Moody, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and dismissing Moody’s 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 April 13, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on
May 25, 2010. * Because Moody 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487
U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
2
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3