UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6031
JOSEPH E. MACON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHARLES R. BEDDINGFIELD, their official capacities as police
officers for the City of Williamston, County of Anderson; D.
B. BROOKS, their official capacities as police officers for
the City of Williamston, County of Anderson; DAVID J.
ROGERS, official capacity as dogcatcher for the City of
Williamston, County of Anderson,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(8:02-cv-03734-HFF)
Submitted: May 19, 2011 Decided: May 24, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph E. Macon, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON &
LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph E. Macon seeks to appeal the district court’s
text order denying his “Motion to Rehear and Squash this
Prejudice Opinion.” In the motion, Macon essentially sought
reconsideration of the district court’s June 8, 2004 order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. 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 text order was entered on the
docket on December 1, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on
January 3, 2011. Because Macon 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
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
2