Opinion
No. 20-6725
09-29-2020
ROYMAD SHAQUIL MCDANIEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JACOB SCOTT SAXON; K-9 MAGNUM; RICHARD A. FINCH, JR.; ANDERSON CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees.
Roymad Shaquil McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Todd Coffee, LOGAN, JOLLY & SMITH, LLP, Anderson, South Carolina; Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDONALD, PATRICK, POSTON, HEMPHILL & ROPER, LLC, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:18-cv-01939-RMG) Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roymad Shaquil McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Todd Coffee, LOGAN, JOLLY & SMITH, LLP, Anderson, South Carolina; Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDONALD, PATRICK, POSTON, HEMPHILL & ROPER, LLC, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Roymad Shaquil McDaniel seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
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).
The district court entered its order on December 2, 2019. McDaniel filed the notice of appeal, at the earliest, on February 20, 2020. Because McDaniel 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED