Curtis King v. Officer Yancey Young

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:11-cv-01455-RBH Copies to all parties and the district court. [999512981]. Mailed to: Curtis King. [14-7226]

Appeal: 14-7226

Doc: 16

Filed: 01/20/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7226

CURTIS L. KING,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICER YANCEY YOUNG,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
JON OZMINT; WARDEN CARTLEDGE; MAJOR LEWIS; CAPT. MURSIER;
LT. STEVEN; LT. CROUTCH; SGT. MACKY; SGT. WRIT; OFC.
CURHLEY; DOCTOR MCCREE; RN CRAWFORD; RN ANDREW; RN BLACK;
CYNTHIA CHERNECKI; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Known and unknown officials in official and individual
capacity
security
medical;
THOMAS
A.
MOORE,
Medical
Director,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(0:11-cv-01455-RBH)

Submitted:

January 15, 2015

Decided:

January 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 14-7226

Doc: 16

Filed: 01/20/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

Curtis L. King, Appellant Pro Se.
Kay Gaffney Crowe, BARNES,
ALFORD, STORK & JOHNSON, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-7226

Doc: 16

Filed: 01/20/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Curtis L. King seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing

his

42

U.S.C.

§ 1983

(2012)

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 final order dismissing the § 1983
complaint with prejudice was entered on the docket on June 16,
The notice of appeal was filed on July 29, 2014. *

2014.

Because

King failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an
extension
appeal.
legal

or

reopening

of

the

appeal

period,

we

dismiss

the

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions

are

adequately

*

presented

in

the

materials

For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the envelope in which King mailed his notice of
appeal is the earliest date the document 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).

3

Appeal: 14-7226

before

Doc: 16

this

court

Filed: 01/20/2015

and

Pg: 4 of 4

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

DISMISSED

4