Court Opinion

ID: 807019
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-08-20 19:24:27+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:23.054927
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 12-1833

ANDRES LEROY GLENN,

                      Plaintiff – Appellant,

          v.

KATHY VANDROSS; ALAN VANDROSS,

                      Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.   Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:12-cv-00763-CMC)

Submitted:   August 16, 2012                 Decided:   August 20, 2012

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andres Leroy Glenn, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

              Andres   Leroy    Glenn    seeks    to     appeal   the    district

court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and

dismissing without prejudice Glenn’s civil action.                   We dismiss

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal

was not timely filed.

              Parties are accorded thirty 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’s order was entered on the docket

on May 16, 2012.         The notice of appeal was filed on July 3,

2012.   Because Glenn 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   the     court    and   argument    would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                        DISMISSED

                                         2