Christopher Hickson v. Officer Stewart

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:15-cv-02433-CMC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999902563]. Mailed to: C. Hickson. [16-6755]

Appeal: 16-6755

Doc: 14

Filed: 08/02/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6755

CHRISTOPHER HICKSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICER JOHN STEWART, individually and in his official
capacity as a Lake City Police Officer; OFFICER SANDY
THOMPSON, individually and in his official capacity as a
Lake City Police Officer; OFFICER KEVIN COOK, individually
and in his official capacity as a Lake City Police Officer;
CHIEF OF POLICE BILLY BROWN, individually and his official
capacity as the former and/or present Chief of Police of the
Lake City Police Department; CHIEF OF POLICE JODY COOPER,
individually and her official capacity as the former and/or
present Chief of Police of the Lake City Police Department;
THE CITY OF LAKE CITY,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
THE LAKE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; ABC INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (4:15-cv-02433-CMC)

Submitted:

July 28, 2016

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

August 2, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Appeal: 16-6755

Doc: 14

Filed: 08/02/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Hickson, Appellant Pro Se. Walker Heinitsh Willcox,
WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-6755

Doc: 14

Filed: 08/02/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Christopher Hickson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

adopting

in

part

the

recommendation

of

the

magistrate

judge, granting summary judgment to Appellees, and dismissing
his

civil

action.

We

dismiss

the

appeal

for

lack

of

jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties
district

are

court’s

accorded
final

30

days

judgment

or

after
order

the
to

entry

note

of

an

the

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
April 26, 2016.

The notice of appeal was filed on June 2, 2016.

Because Hickson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain

an

extension

dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

or

reopening

of

the

appeal

period,

we

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3