USCA4 Appeal: 23-1984 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1984

RUFUS JULIUS ANDERSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

J. A. PIPER ROOFING CO.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (6:21-cv-02901-DCC)

Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 2, 2024

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rufus J. C. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1984 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Rufus Julius Anderson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders granting Defendant

summary judgment on Anderson’s employment discrimination claims, brought pursuant to

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17; and the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,

to 12213, and denying

Anderson’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We dismiss this 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,

(2007).

The district court entered its order denying Anderson Rule 59(e) relief on April 13,

2023, and mailed a physical copy of the order to Anderson on June 1, 2023. Anderson

filed the underlying notice of appeal on September 18, 2023. Because Anderson 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

2