Case ID: f-appx_520/html/0200-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eugene THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James M. DORRIETY; Scotty Bodiford; Tracy H. Krien; Patricia Rae, PA; Susan Ward, et al, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-7977.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 17, 2013.
    Decided: April 30, 2013.
    Eugene Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Russell W. Harter, Jr., Chapman, Harter & Harter, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eugene Thomas, a South Carolina inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in Thomas’ 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on September 25, 2012. Around the same time, Thomas was transferred to another facility. The district court re-issued the order and judgment on October 1, 2012, after learning of Thomas’ address change. Running the thirty-day appeal period from this later date, the latest day for filing a timely notice of appeal was Thursday, October 31, 2012. See Fed. R.App. P. 26(a)(1). Thomas’ notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on Wednesday, November 14, 2012. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(c)(1).

Because Thomas failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal as untimely. 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.