Peter Thomas v. Richland County

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:11-cv-00176-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998706205]. Mailed to: Thomas. [11-6769]

Appeal: 11-6769

Document: 13

Date Filed: 10/21/2011

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6769

PETER L. THOMAS, a/k/a Peter Lloyd Thomas, a/k/a Patrick R.
Harrison,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
RICHLAND COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER; JAMES HUNTER MAY; J. CLARKE
NEWTON,
Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (4:11-cv-00176-JFA)

Submitted:

October 18, 2011

Decided:

October 21, 2011

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Peter L. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6769

Document: 13

Date Filed: 10/21/2011

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Peter

L.

Thomas

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint.

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 April 29, 2011.

The notice of appeal was filed, at the

earliest, on June 10, 2011.

Because Thomas failed to file a

timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening
of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with
contentions
the

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

2