UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7283
WILLIAM WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden; DAN PATTERSON; N. BARBER, Chaplin;
BOBBY HANKERSON, Chaplin,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (9:10-cv-03211-JFA)
Submitted: October 23, 2012 Decided: November 6, 2012
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Washington, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson
II, David C. Plyler, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Washington seeks to appeal the district
court’s 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 order was entered on the docket
on November 29, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on
July 10, 2012. * Washington failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period. The notice of appeal accordingly was untimely, and we
therefore grant the Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
*
The notice of appeal is hand-dated July 10, 2012, and we
assume it was deposited in the institutional internal mail
system on that date. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1)
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3