USCA4 Appeal: 23-7291 Doc: 28 Filed: 07/29/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7291

ANDRED CLINTON DAVIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DONALD AMES, Warden; JASON BRAGG, Unit Manager; RICHARD TONEY, Captain; WOOTEN, Counselor; E. AARON, Sargent; CAPT. CLIFFORD; NURSE BRANDY; C.O. SPEARS; LT. WILSON, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (2:21-cv-00106)

Submitted: July 25, 2024 Decided: July 29, 2024

Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hoyt Eric Glazer, Abraham Julian Saad, GLAZER SAAD ANDERSON LC, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellant. William E. Murray, BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7291 Doc: 28 Filed: 07/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Andred Clinton Davis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing with prejudice Davis’ civil action for failure to prosecute. Appellees have filed two motions to dismiss on the grounds that this appeal is untimely and that Davis waived appellate review by failing to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

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 November 1, 2023. Davis filed the notice of appeal on December 18, 2023. Because Davis failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant Appellees’ motion to dismiss this untimely appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny as moot Appellees’ second motion to dismiss on the ground that Davis failed to object to the magistrate judge’s report.

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