USCA4 Appeal: 22-7247 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7247

DAMORIUS D. GAINES, a/k/a Damorius Dontavis Gaines, a/k/a Damorius Dontavious Gaines, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GEOFFREY BENEDICT EATON; CATHERINE T. HUEY; CORDELL J.

MADDOX; ALAN MCCRORY WILSON; WILLIAM M. BLITCH, JR.; STAN OVERBY; CRAIG A. GARDNER; LILLIAN L. MEADOWS; LETITIA VERDIN; BEN APLIN; CHAD MCBRIDE, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:22-cv-00416-HMH)

Submitted: February 21, 2023 Decided: February 24, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damorius D. Gaines, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7247 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Damorius D. Gaines seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to dismiss 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 August 11, 2022. Gaines filed the notice of appeal on October 11, 2022. * Because Gaines 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

For purposes of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing in the notice of * appeal is the earliest date Gaines 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).