Matthew Anderson v. Bernard Mackie


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:15-cv-01505-GRA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999705773]. Mailed to: Matthew Anderson. [15-7400]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-7400 Doc: 21 Filed: 11/24/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7400 MATTHEW ANDERSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. BERNARD MACKIE; MS. GASQUE, Defendants – Appellees, and SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; SERGEANT LIVINGSTON; SERGEANT CHESTNUT; MAJOR JACKSON; LIEUTENANT GIBSON, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:15-cv-01505-GRA) Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-7400 Doc: 21 Filed: 11/24/2015 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Matthew Anderson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Anderson’s 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 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 July 14, 2015. August 31, 2015. * The notice of appeal was filed on Because Anderson 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 * 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: 15-7400 Doc: 21 Filed: 11/24/2015 Pg: 3 of 3 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?