Court Opinion

ID: 9412267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 21:02:28.544173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:38.388324
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2160      Doc: 10         Filed: 07/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2160

        BRENDA DAWSON BATTLE,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        ATTY CREEL; JUDGE GRIFFIN; JUDGE CURTIS; MARK STUCKEY;
        ASHLEY ACKERMAN; JIMMY LOWERY,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:22-cv-02138-CMC)

        Submitted: July 25, 2023                                          Decided: July 27, 2023

        Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Brenda Dawson Battle, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2160         Doc: 10      Filed: 07/27/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Brenda Dawson Battle seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

        magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing Battle’s civil complaint. 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 August 24, 2022. Battle filed the notice of

        appeal on November 9, 2022. Because Battle 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

               *
                 In her informal brief, Battle states that she did not receive notice of the district
        court’s order until October 8, 2022. Battle did not mention that fact in her notice of appeal
        or ask the district court to reopen the appeal period. We decline to construe Battle’s bare
        notice of appeal as a motion to reopen the appeal period. See Shah v. Hutto, 722 F.2d 1167,
        1168-69 (4th Cir. 1983) (en banc).

                                                     2