Court Opinion

ID: 9397989
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-27 21:00:44.850287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:29.335296
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6264      Doc: 26         Filed: 05/26/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6264

        KELVIN TOYO HENRY, a/k/a Kevin Toyo Banks,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN OF THE GREENVILLE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; OFFICER
        T. KELLETT; TAMEESHA HENRY; APRIL YOUNG; AMARI YOUNG;
        ROBBY REED; SOUTH CAROLINA; JONATHAN J. GARRETT,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Greenville. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (6:22-cv-03278-RMG)

        Submitted: May 23, 2023                                           Decided: May 26, 2023

        Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kelvin Toyo Henry, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6264         Doc: 26      Filed: 05/26/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Kelvin Toyo Henry seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Henry’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983

        complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A, and the court’s subsequent order

        denying Henry’s motion to reconsider. 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 final order on January 12, 2023. Henry filed the notice

        of appeal on February 14, 2023. * Because Henry failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

        to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny

        Henry’s pending motions as moot.

               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 Henry could have delivered the notice to prison officials for
        mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

                                                     2