Ronald Legg v. South Carolina

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:13-cv-00172-RMG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999156572]. Mailed to: appellant. [13-6653]

Appeal: 13-6653

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/23/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6653

RONALD L. LEGG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA; W. THOMAS FLOYD,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (4:13-cv-00172-RMG)

Submitted:

July 18, 2013

Decided:

July 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald L. Legg, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6653

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/23/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ronald L. Legg seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
and dismissing without prejudice 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 March 7, 2013.

The notice of appeal was filed on April 18,

2013. * Because Legg failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

legal

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

*

adequately

presented

in

the

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,
276 (1988).

2

Appeal: 13-6653

Doc: 10

materials

before

Filed: 07/23/2013

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3