Curtis Richardson v. Matt Mahon

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1909
CURTIS RICHARDSON, a/k/a Curtis D. Richardson, a/k/a Curtis Dale
Richardson,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MATT MAHON, Loris, SC, Policeman, individual and official capacity,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
KAREN SHEPHERD, Chief of Police of Loris, SC, individual and official capacity;
SERGEANT RICHARDSON, individual and official capacity; MAJOR
JOHNSON, individual and official capacity; SOUTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CLASSIFICATION SUPERVISOR
(NAME UNKNOWN), individual and official capacity; OFFICER JEFF GORE,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (4:15-cv-03317-MGL)
Submitted: June 30, 2020 Decided: July 9, 2020
Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Curtis Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Jerome Scott Kozacki, WILLCOX BUYCK &
WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his
postjudgment motions. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice
of appeal was not timely filed.
In civil cases, parties have 30 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 entered its order on July 8, 2019. Richardson filed the notice of
appeal on August 8, 2019. Because Richardson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and dismiss the appeal.
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