Steven Brown v. Willie Eagleton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999359518-2] Originating case number: 8:13-cv-00674-DCN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999428233]. Mailed to: Steven Brown. [14-6726]

Download PDF
Appeal: 14-6726 Doc: 21 Filed: 09/03/2014 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6726 STEVEN C. BROWN, a/k/a Steven Cory Brown, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIE L. EAGLETON, Warden, all sued in their official capacity respectfully; ROBIN K. CHAVIS, Associate Warden, all sued in their official capacity respectfully; JAMES BETHEA, Classification Worker, all sued in their official capacity respectfully; ARGIE GRAVES, Grievance Clerk, all sued in their official capacity respectfully, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. David C. Norton, District Judge. (8:13-cv-00674-DCN) Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven C. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. James Victor McDade, DOYLE, O’ROURKE, TATE & MCDADE, PA, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 14-6726 Doc: 21 Filed: 09/03/2014 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Steven C. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action against Defendants. has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. Brown We deny Brown’s motion for appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.” The Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). district court’s docket on November 22, 2013. on May 6, untimely. 2014. * judgment was entered on the Brown filed his notice of appeal Accordingly, Brown’s notice of appeal is Although Brown suggests that he timely filed a notice of appeal soon after receiving notice of the district court’s dismissal order, Brown provides appeal was timely filed. of appeal * cannot satisfy no proof that his notice of Moreover, Brown’s May 6, 2014 notice the requirements for Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988). 2 a motion for Appeal: 14-6726 Doc: 21 Filed: 09/03/2014 Pg: 3 of 3 extension or a reopening of the appeal period and, thus, it will not be construed as such. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), (a)(6). Based on the foregoing, we deny Brown’s motion for appointment of jurisdiction. counsel and dismiss the appeal for lack of 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?