Singletary v. Edgefield Police Department , 433 F. App'x 193 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-7726
    WILLIAM SINGLETARY,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    EDGEFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT; EDGEFIELD COUNTY SHERIFF'S
    DEPARTMENT; KEN DURHAM, Major; TOWN OF EDGEFIELD; RONALD
    CARTER, Chief of Police; ADELL DOLBEY, Sheriff of Edgefield
    County; EDGEFIELD DETENTION CENTER; SOUTH CAROLINA LAW
    ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, SLED; REGINALD I. LLOYD, Director;
    PAUL GRANT, Major, SLED; CHRIS WASH, Captain,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Beaufort.   Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
    (9:09-cv-01079-TLW)
    Submitted:   May 26, 2011                  Decided:   May 31, 2011
    Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    William Singletary, Appellant Pro Se.       Daniel C. Plyler,
    DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Russell W.
    Harter, Jr., CHAPMAN, HARTER & GROVES, PA, Greenville, South
    Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    William   Singletary   seeks   to   appeal   the   district
    court’s order dismissing his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2006) action.          We
    dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice
    of appeal was not timely filed.
    Parties are accorded thirty 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’s order was entered on the docket
    on October 1, 2010.       The notice of appeal was filed on December
    10, 2010. *     Because Singletary failed to file a timely notice of
    appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
    period, we dismiss the appeal.           Further, we deny Singletary’s
    request to proceed in forma pauperis, as well as all pending
    motions, including his motion to be relocated; motion for stay
    and to remand to county court; motion for a contempt citation;
    *
    For the purposes of this appeal, we assume that the date
    appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest it could have
    been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the
    court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 
    487 U.S. 266
    ,
    276 (1988).
    2
    motion   for   expedited   review;   motion   to   appoint   counsel;   and
    motion for an ex-parte hearing.          We dispense with oral argument
    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
    in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-7726

Citation Numbers: 433 F. App'x 193

Judges: Diaz, King, Per Curiam, Shedd

Filed Date: 5/31/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023