Court Opinion

ID: 9412377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-29 21:01:06.291809+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:08.396856
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6480      Doc: 11         Filed: 07/28/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6480

        CLINTON D. JOHNSON, JR., a/k/a Clinton D. Johnson, a/k/a Clinton Douglas
        Johnson, Jr., a/k/a Kayzon Ru,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        OFFICER B. R. DANCELON; BLAKE A. NORTON; SHAWN D. CHASTIN; ELI
        ELIJAH HEWELL; KIM RUTZ; KIM DUBOSE; SOUTHERN HEALTHCARE
        PARTNERS; HENRY MCMASTER; CAPTAIN JEREMY CHAPMAN; BRIAN
        DANIELSON; MIKE CRENSHAW; WAYNE OWENS; MPD COLLINS;
        DEPUTY HAILEY; BETHANY BLUNDY; DAVID R. WAGNER; STEVEN
        GILLIARD,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Orangeburg. Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (5:22-cv-01547-SAL)

        Submitted: July 25, 2023                                          Decided: July 28, 2023

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

        Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Clinton Douglas Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6480       Doc: 11         Filed: 07/28/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Clinton D. Johnson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Johnson’s amended complaint.

        “[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). Parties have 30 days after the entry of the

        district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal in a civil case, 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). A district court may reopen

        the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(6) if (1) the party moving for reopening did not receive

        notice of the entry of the judgment or order sought to be appealed within 21 days after

        entry; (2) the motion to reopen is filed within 180 days after the entry of the judgment or

        order, or within 14 days after receiving notice of such entry, whichever is earlier; and (3) a

        reopening would not prejudice any party.

               The district court entered its order on February 13, 2023. Johnson did not file his

        notice of appeal until May 5, 2023. * Johnson’s appeal was thus filed after the 30-day

        appeal period expired. Johnson stated in the notice of appeal, however, that he did not

        receive the district court’s order until April 28, 2023.

               Because Johnson’s notice of appeal informed the district court that he wished to

        appeal and that he did not receive the court’s order until April 28, we construe it as a motion

               *
                 We assume that the date appearing on Johnson’s notice of appeal is the earliest
        date that he could have provided it to prison officials for mailing to the district court. See
        Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6480      Doc: 11        Filed: 07/28/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        to reopen the appeal period. We therefore remand to the district court for the limited

        purpose of determining whether Johnson is entitled to a reopening of the appeal period

        pursuant to Rule 4(a)(6). The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court

        for further consideration.

                                                                                    REMANDED

                                                    3