UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6471
ANDREW DRAYTON, JR.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
STATE, etc,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Richard M. Gergel, District
Judge. (0:14-cv-01548-RMG)
Submitted: July 28, 2015 Decided: September 4, 2015
Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew Drayton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Andrew Drayton, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without
prejudice. We remand for consideration of whether reopening of
the appeal period is warranted.
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 3, 2014. Drayton filed his notice of appeal on
September 25, 2014. Drayton’s notice of appeal is thus clearly
untimely. However, on September 8, 2014, Drayton filed a
“motion of disclosure” in which he stated that he had not
received written notice of the court’s decision in the case.
Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), the district court may reopen the
time to file an appeal if: (1) the moving party did not receive
notice of entry of judgment within 21 days after entry; (2) the
motion is filed within 180 days of entry of judgment or within
2
14 days of receiving notice from the court, whichever is
earlier: and (3) no party would be prejudiced.
In the motion of disclosure, Drayton stated that he was
told the case was closed on July 3, 2014, but did not know who
had prevailed and had not received a written judgment.
Accordingly, we remand for the limited purpose of permitting the
district court to determine whether Drayton’s motion of
disclosure should be construed as a motion to reopen the appeal
period, and if so, whether reopening is warranted. The record,
as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further
consideration.
REMANDED
3