Anthony Wright v. Joanne Conley

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:10-cv-02444-TLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999197764]. Mailed to: Anthony Wright. [13-1800]

Appeal: 13-1800

Doc: 10

Filed: 09/20/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1800

ANTHONY LAMAR WRIGHT, a/k/a Anthony L. Wright,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOANNE CONLEY, in her individual capacity; DEBRA BRABHAM, in
her individual capacity; WARDEN MACKIE, in his individual
capacity; DR. MOORE, in his individual capacity; CHUCK
FRAZIER, in his individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:10-cv-02444-TLW)

Submitted:

September 16, 2013

Decided:

September 20, 2013

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Lamar Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew David Cavender,
GRIFFITH, SADLER & SHARP, PA, Beaufort, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1800

Doc: 10

Filed: 09/20/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Anthony

Lamar

Wright

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s margin order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion
for

reconsideration

magistrate

judge’s

of

the

court’s

recommendation

prior

to

order

dismiss

adopting

his

42

the

U.S.C.

§ 1983 (2006) civil rights action for failure to exhaust his
administrative

remedies.

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 May 22, 2013.

Accordingly, the latest day for filing a

timely notice of appeal was Friday, June 21, 2013.
App. P. 26(a)(1).

See Fed. R.

Wright’s notice of appeal, however, was not

received for filing until Monday, June 24, 2013.

Because Wright

failed

to

to

file

a

timely

notice

of

appeal

or

obtain

an

extension or reopening of the appeal period, we are constrained
to

dismiss

the

appeal

as

untimely.

We

dispense

with

oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2

Appeal: 13-1800

Doc: 10

Filed: 09/20/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3