Keith Seward v. Dr. James Riddle

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cv-00911-CMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998725066]. Mailed to: Seward. [11-2059]

Appeal: 11-2059

Document: 10

Date Filed: 11/17/2011

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2059

KEITH SEWARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DR. JAMES RIDDLE, St Dir of Mental Health; DIR. JOHN H.
MAGILL,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:11-cv-00911-CMC)

Submitted:

November 15, 2011

Decided:

November 17, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Seward, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-2059

Document: 10

Date Filed: 11/17/2011

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Keith

Seward

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
and dismissing his complaint without prejudice.

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 June 2, 2011.
26, 2011.

The notice of appeal was filed on September

Because Seward 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