Gary Wise v. Jon Ozmint

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:13-cv-03414-RMG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999722117]. Mailed to: Gary Wise. [15-1887]

Appeal: 15-1887

Doc: 9

Filed: 12/21/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1887

GARY L. WISE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR JON E. OZMINT, individually and in their official
capacities; WARDEN GREGORY KNOWLIN, individually and in
their official capacities; BRYAN P. STIRLING, Acting Agency
Director, individually and in their official capacities,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; PHYSICIAN MICHAEL
J. BEINOR, individually and in their official capacities;
DR. ALLAN C. WALLS, individually and in their official
capacities; DR. ALEWINE, individually and in their official
capacities; PHYSICIAN BENJAMIN F. LEWIS, individually and in
their
official
capacities;
PHYSICIAN
JAMES
E.
KAY,
individually and in their official capacities; MD PHYSICIAN
JACK
M.
VALPEY,
individually
and
in
their
official
capacities,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (6:13-cv-03414-RMG)

Submitted:

December 17, 2015

Decided:

December 21, 2015

Appeal: 15-1887

Doc: 9

Filed: 12/21/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary L. Wise, Appellant Pro Se.
Samuel F. Arthur, III, AIKEN,
BRIDGES, NUNN, ELLIOTT & TYLER, PA, Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-1887

Doc: 9

Filed: 12/21/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Gary L. Wise seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting

the

Defendants’
judgment

magistrate

summary

motion

in

judge’s

judgment
his

42

recommendation

motion

U.S.C.

and

§ 1983

deny

to

Wise’s

(2012)

grant
summary

action.

We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice
of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties

are

accorded

30

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
June 24, 2015.

The notice of appeal was filed on July 27, 2015.

Because Wise failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain
an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the
appeal.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

DISMISSED
3