Eugene King v. Orangeburg County Court of Common Pleas
Eugene King v. Orangeburg County Court of Common Pleas
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6153 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/19/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6153
EUGENE KING,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ORANGEBURG COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS; EDWARD DICKERSON, Administrative Judge, Individual and official capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (5:23-cv-01898-TLW)
Submitted: September 5, 2024 Decided: September 19, 2024
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eugene King, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6153 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/19/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Eugene King seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his post-judgment
motion to amend his
42 U.S.C. § 1983complaint. 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 October 17, 2023, and the appeal period
expired on November 16, 2023. King filed the notice of appeal on February 9, 2024. *
Because King 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 the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on King’s declaration of inmate filing is the earliest date that King could have delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing to the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack,
487 U.S. 266, 276(1988).
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished