Court Opinion

ID: 9882041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 21:01:00.213986+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:19.155588
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6591      Doc: 13         Filed: 10/03/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6591

        KHAMMESHERMA SMITH,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        LIEUTENANT SIMON; OFFICER ISSACS,

                            Defendants - Appellees,

                     and

        UNKNOWN INMATE 1; UNKNOWN INMATE 2 (FI:B),

                            Defendants.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Greenville. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (6:22-cv-02592-RMG)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 3, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Khammesherma Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6591         Doc: 13      Filed: 10/03/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Khammesherma Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42

        U.S.C. § 1983 action. 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 February 24, 2023. Smith filed the notice of

        appeal on June 9, 2023. * Because Smith 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 Smith 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