UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7977
EUGENE THOMAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMES M. DORRIETY; SCOTTY BODIFORD; TRACY H. KRIEN; PATRICIA
RAE, PA; SUSAN WARD, et al,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District
Judge. (1:11-cv-01585-MBS)
Submitted: April 17, 2013 Decided: April 30,2013
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eugene Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Russell W. Harter, Jr.,
CHAPMAN, HARTER & HARTER, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eugene Thomas, a South Carolina inmate, seeks to
appeal the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion
for summary judgment in Thomas’ civil rights action. 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 September 25, 2012. Around the same time, Thomas was
transferred to another facility. The district court re-issued
the order and judgment on October 1, 2012, after learning of
Thomas’ address change. Running the thirty-day appeal period
from this later date, the latest day for filing a timely notice
of appeal was Thursday, October 31, 2012. See Fed. R. App. P.
26(a)(1). Thomas’ notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest,
on Wednesday, November 14, 2012. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1).
Because Thomas failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
2
period, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal as untimely.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3