Court Opinion

ID: 9895154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-04 21:00:48.648518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:28.483207
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6836      Doc: 8         Filed: 11/03/2023      Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6836

        CHARLES GARY SINGLETARY, III,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        WARDEN JACKSON, Warden,

                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
        Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (9:22-cv-04362-HMH)

        Submitted: October 31, 2023                                    Decided: November 3, 2023

        Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Charles Gary Singletary, III, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6836         Doc: 8        Filed: 11/03/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

                 Charles Gary Singletary, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil 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 March 28, 2023. Singletary filed the notice

        of appeal on August 18, 2023. ∗ Because Singletary 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 Singletary 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