Opinion
24-6045
08-16-2024
JOVAN M. BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RON LAWRENZ; ERIC RAMOS; LISA YOUNG, Defendants - Appellees.
Jovan M. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Quintin Atkinson, Mark Victor Gende, SWEENY, WINGATE & BARROW, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: August 12, 2024.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville (6:22-cv-01705-HMH), Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge.
Jovan M. Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Daniel Quintin Atkinson, Mark Victor Gende, SWEENY, WINGATE & BARROW, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jovan M. Brown seeks to appeal the district court's September 7, 2023, order and judgment accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation, granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and dismissing Brown's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. In civil cases, parties have 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). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
The district court entered its order and judgment on September 7, 2023, and the appeal period expired on October 9, 2023. Brown filed the notice of appeal on December 27, 2023. [*] On limited remand, the court denied Brown's motion to reopen the appeal period. Because Brown failed to file a timely notice of appeal and the court declined to reopen 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
[*] For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the postmark date appearing on the envelope containing the notice of appeal is the earliest date Brown could have delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).