Case Name: Ronald L. LEGG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA; W. Thomas Floyd, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-23
Citations: 534 F. App'x 199
Docket Number: No. 13-6653
Parties: Ronald L. LEGG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA; W. Thomas Floyd, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 534
Pages: 199–199

Head Matter:
Ronald L. LEGG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA; W. Thomas Floyd, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-6653.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 18, 2013.
Decided: July 23, 2013.
Ronald L. Legg, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald L. Legg seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and dismissing without prejudice 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. RApp. 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 March 7, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed on April 18, 2013. Because Legg 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 in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.
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, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).