Demetrius Smalls v. J C Nicholson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:14-cv-03215-RMG. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999606368]. Mailed to: Demetrius Smalls. [15-6123]

Appeal: 15-6123

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6123

DEMETRIUS JAROD SMALLS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
J C NICHOLSON; IRA GROSSMAN,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (2:14-cv-03215-RMG)

Submitted:

June 18, 2015

Decided:

June 22, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Demetrius Jarod Smalls, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6123

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Demetrius Jarod Smalls seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying Smalls’ action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012).

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
September

29,

2014.

January 22, 2015. *

The

notice

of

appeal

was

filed

on

Because Smalls failed to file a timely notice

of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period, we dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

*

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
(1988).

2

Appeal: 15-6123

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/22/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

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

DISMISSED

3