Reverend Reaves v. Mullins, City of

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:07-cv-03559-TLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998559215]. Mailed to: Reverend Franklin C. Reaves and Vastena Reaves. [10-1979]

Case: 10-1979

Document: 39

Date Filed: 04/04/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1979

REVEREND FRANKLIN C. REAVES, PhD; VASTENA REAVES, All other
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
MULLINS, CITY OF; MARION COUNTY; W. KENNETH MCDONALD,
individually and in his official capacity as Mayor; TERRY B.
STRICKLAND, individually and in his official capacity as
member of Mullins City Council; JO A. SANDERS, individually
and in her official capacity as member of Mullins City
Council; JAMES W. ARMSTRONG, individually and in his
official capacity as member of Mullins City Council;
PATRICIA A. PHILLIPS, individually and in her official
capacity as member of Mullins City Council; D. WAYNE
COLLINS, individually and in his official capacity as member
of Mullins City Council; DANIEL B. SHELLEY, JR.; GEORGE
HARDWICK, individually and in his official capacity as City
Administrator for City of Mullins; JOHN Q. ATKINSON,
individually and in his official capacity as member of
Marion County Council; ELOISE W. ROGERS, individually and in
her official capacity as member of Marion County Council;
TOM SHAW, individually and in his official capacity as
member of Marion County Council; ALLEN FLOYD, individually
and in his official capacity as member of Marion County
Council; MILTON TROY, individually and in his official
capacity as member of Marion County Council; PEARLY BRITT,
individually and in his official capacity as member of
Marion County Council; ELISTA H. SMITH, individually and in
her official capacity as member of Marion County Council;
KENT WILLIAMS, individually and in his official capacity as
Marion County Administrator; K. DONALD FLING, individually
and in his official capacity as Marion County Code
Enforcement Officer; MULLINS POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF;
RUSSELL BASS, individually and in his official capacity as
Chief
of
Mullins
Police
Department;
EDWIN
ROGERS,

Case: 10-1979

Document: 39

Date Filed: 04/04/2011

Page: 2

individually and in official capacity as City of Mullins
Planner,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:07-cv-03559-TLW)

Submitted:

March 31, 2011

Decided:

April 4, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Franklin C. Reaves and Vastena Reaves, Appellants Pro Se.
Douglas Charles Baxter, RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA,
Myrtle
Beach,
South
Carolina;
Michelle
Parsons
Kelley,
RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina;
Robert Thomas King, WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Case: 10-1979

Document: 39

Date Filed: 04/04/2011

Page: 3

PER CURIAM:
Appellants seek to appeal the district court’s orders
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on their civil action and denying their subsequent Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration.

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.”
The

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
district

court’s

order

denying

the

Rule

motion was entered on the docket on December 11, 2009.
notice of appeal was filed on August 24, 2010.

59(e)
The

Appellants did

not file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or
reopening of the appeal period.

Moreover, their miscellaneous

motions filed after the entry of the final order did not affect
the time to file an appeal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a)(4)(A).
Accordingly,

we

dismiss

the

appeal.

We

dispense

with

oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

3

Case: 10-1979

Document: 39

Date Filed: 04/04/2011

Page: 4

presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

4