Travis Davidson v. Robert Ratliff

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to amend/correct [998851909-2]; denying Motion to supplement [998851909-3]; denying Motion for other relief [998851909-4]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998814966-2] Originating case number: 4:11-cv-01072-RBH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998874648]. Mailed to: Davidson. [11-7499]

Appeal: 11-7499

Doc: 22

Filed: 06/14/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7499

TRAVIS LEON DAVIDSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT RATLIFF; NICOLE MACE; WESLEY ROBINSON,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:11-cv-01072-RBH)

Submitted:

June 7, 2012

Decided:

June 14, 2012

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Travis Leon Davidson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7499

Doc: 22

Filed: 06/14/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Travis
court’s

order

Leon

Davidson

accepting

the

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation

judge and dismissing his civil complaint.

of

the
the

district

magistrate

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 July 22, 2011.
2011. *

The notice of appeal was filed on November 4,

Because Davidson failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
deny his pending motions and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

*

For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to
the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988).

2

Appeal: 11-7499

Doc: 22

adequately

Filed: 06/14/2012

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

the

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3