UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7707
TIMOTHY GREEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LT. FRANKLIN RICHARDSON, JR.; NURSE PRATT; NURSE
PRACTITIONER RABON; NURSE FRANKLIN; NURSE MOODY; NURSE KAREN
COOPER; OFC. THOMPSON, SMU; SGT. PRICE; OFC. CAIN; LT.
JENKINS; OFC. FARMER; OFC. MICKENS; SGT. DEMAYRIE, SMU;
NURSE JONES; MEDICAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Whom agency is
contracted with SCDC; HEAD DOCTOR, at Headquarters and
Staff,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
SCDC; NURSE AND MEDICAL UNIT LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Kevin Frank McDonald, Magistrate
Judge; Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (6:14-cv-02595-MGL)
Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: April 25, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy F. Green, Appellant Pro Se. David Cornwell Holler, G.
Murrell Smith, Jr., LEE ERTER WILSON HOLLER & SMITH, LLC,
Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Green seeks to appeal the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant
Defendants summary judgment in Green’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
civil rights action. 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 final judgment was entered on the
docket on July 22, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed, at the
earliest, on October 1, 2015. * Because Green 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
*
To establish the date of filing, we rely on the date stamp
on the envelope reflecting the prison mailroom’s receipt of the
notice of appeal, as this is the earliest date the notice of
appeal 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).
3
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
4