UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2164
OWEN FRANKLIN SILVIOUS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
AFNI, INCORPORATED,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED; ENCORE CAPITAL
GROUP, INCORPORATED; ACCOUNT SERVICES; APPLIED CARD BANK;
CREDIGY RECEIVABLES, INCORPORATED; CREDIT ONE BANK; LTD
FINANCIAL SERVICES, LP,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:07-cv-00145-FPS-JES)
Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 4, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Owen Franklin Silvious, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Todd Booth,
BOOTH & MCCARTHY, Bridgeport, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Owen Franklin Silvious seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting and adopting the report and
recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting AFNI,
Incorporated’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissing
Silvious’ civil action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty 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 August 3, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed sixty-three
days later, on October 5, 2009. * Because Silvious 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
*
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,
276 (1988).
3
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
4