UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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. The notice of appeal was filed on
August 31, 2015. * 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
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3