Opinion
22-7416
03-24-2023
MIGUEL A. RIVERA-ALVAREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MCI-H; WARDEN GREGORY A. WERNER; ASST. WARDEN TODD A. HULL; CHIEF SECURITY LAURA K. GOLLIDAY; OFFICER JOHN DOE, Defendants-Appellees.
Miguel A. Rivera-Alvarez, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: March 21, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (1:22-cv-01861-SAG)
Miguel A. Rivera-Alvarez, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Miguel A. Rivera-Alvarez seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. 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 denying reconsideration on October 17, 2022. Rivera-Alvarez filed the notice of appeal on November 28, 2022. Because Rivera-Alvarez failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal and deny all pending motions.
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 date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date Rivera-Alvarez 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).