Jeffrey Pennington v. Kershaw County

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999009082-2] Originating case number: 3:12-cv-01509-JFA-SVH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999074466]. Mailed to: Jeffrey Pennington. [12-2442]

Appeal: 12-2442

Doc: 12

Filed: 03/28/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2442

JEFFREY PENNINGTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KERSHAW COUNTY, South Carolina; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA;
KESHAW COUNTY SOUTH CAROLINA DETENTION CENTER; PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; LIEUTENANT MYERS; DARRELL
DRAKEFORD; JOHN DOES, 1-10; JACKSON; LAWSON; MCLEOD;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ALSTON; R. EUGENE HARTIS,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:12-cv-01509-JFA-SVH)

Submitted:

March 26, 2013

Decided:

March 28, 2013

Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Pennington, Appellant Pro Se.
H. Thomas Morgan, Jr.,
John Kennedy DuBose, III, Jonathan McLean Robinson, DUBOSEROBINSON, P.C., Camden, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-2442

Doc: 12

Filed: 03/28/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey

Pennington

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and
denying relief on his requests for a temporary restraining order
and

preliminary

injunctive

relief.

This

court

may

exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006),
and

certain

interlocutory

and

collateral

orders,

28

U.S.C.

§ 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).

The portion of the

district court’s order denying a temporary restraining order is
neither

a

final

collateral order.

order

nor

an

appealable

interlocutory

or

Accordingly, we dismiss this aspect of the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The
preliminary

district
injunction,

28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).

court’s

denial

however,

is

of

a

request

immediately

for

a

appealable.

Nevertheless, we dismiss this portion

of 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).

2

“[T]he timely

Appeal: 12-2442

Doc: 12

Filed: 03/28/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

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 25, 2012.
19, 2012.

The notice of appeal was filed on November

Because Pennington failed to file a timely notice of

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss
this portion of the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3