Matthew Anderson v. Bernard Mackie

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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