UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7626

BRIAN KEITH NESBITT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN TYGER RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondent.

No. 15-6814

BRIAN KEITH NESBITT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN TYGER RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondent.
2

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District 

of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Richard Mark Gergel, District 

Judge. (0:13-cv-02602-RMG)

Submitted: August 24, 2015 Decided: August 31, 2015

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

14-7626, Dismissed; 15-6814, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Brian Keith Nesbitt, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kaycie Smith Timmons, 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Brian Keith Nesbitt seeks to 

challenge the district court’s order adopting the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2012) petition (No. 14-7626), and the court’s order denying his 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration of its order, 

entered after a limited remand, finding that Nesbitt’s notice of 

appeal was not timely filed (No. 15-6814). See Nesbitt v. 

Warden, Tyger River Corr. Inst., 599 F. App’x 68 (4th Cir. 

2015). We dismiss the appeal in No. 14-7626 for lack of 

jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, 

and affirm the contested order in No. 15-6814.

Parties are accorded 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’s order was entered on the docket on 

September 9, 2014. The district court found on remand that the 

notice of appeal was most likely filed on October 15, 2014.

Because Nesbitt failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to 
4

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 

dismiss the appeal in No. 14-7626.

In No. 15-6814, Nesbitt appeals the district court’s order 

denying his Rule 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Nesbitt v. Warden Tyger 

River Corr. Inst., 0:13-cv-02602-RMG (D.S.C. May 26, 2015).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in No. 14-7626 and 

affirm the district court’s order in No. 15-6814. We deny 

Nesbitt’s motions in No. 14-7626 to compel discovery, to appoint 

counsel, and for a preliminary injunction and a temporary 

restraining order, and his motions in No. 15-6814 to appoint 

counsel and for a preliminary injunction and temporary 

restraining order. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

material before this court and argument will not aid the 

decisional process.

No. 14-7626, DISMISSED;

No. 15-6814, AFFIRMED