UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6907
GERALD SULLIVAN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
JON OZMINT, Commissioner of SCDC; ANTHONY PADULA, Warden of
Lee Correctional Institution; RONNIE CRIBB, Captain;
ANTHONY DAVIS, Lieutenant; LIEUTENANT MIMS; S. PARKER,
Officer; OFFICER SAURS; NURSE BROWN,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
OFFICER HOLT; MAURICE MCBRIDE, Corporal,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, Chief District
Judge. (6:09-cv-01173-DCN)
Submitted: October 13, 2011 Decided: October 18, 2011
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gerald Sullivan, Appellant Pro Se. Bradford Cary Andrews,
Samuel F. Arthur, III, AIKEN, BRIDGES, NUNN, ELLIOTT & TYLER,
PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Gerald Sullivan seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate
judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) suit. He also
challenges the denial of his motion for reconsideration. 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 most recent order by the district court was
entered on December 29, 2010. The undated notice of appeal was
entered on July 8, 2011. Because Sullivan 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
3