Campbell v. Powers

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7289
MICHAEL L. CAMPBELL, a/k/a Michael Leroy Campbell,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LARRY W. POWERS, Director; J. SNIPES, Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(4:07-cv-03972-HFF)
Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 29, 2010
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael L. Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Todd Darwin,
HOLCOMBE, BOMAR, GUNN & BRADFORD, PA, Spartanburg, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael L. Campbell seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)
complaint. 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 August 25, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on
September 10, 2010. * Because Campbell failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the
appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We also deny Campbell’s
motion to assign counsel. 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. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988).
2
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3