Reaves v. State of SC, No. 06-1155 (4th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1155 REVEREND FRANKLIN C. REAVES; FANNIE MELETTE; LAMAR MELETTE; BETTY R. DAVIS; LEWAN MELETTE; SUSAN CRAWFORD; FRANCES HUGGINS; DAVID FRAZIER; MICHAEL SMALL; BEULAH MCCUMMINGS; MONEIK M. MCCUMMINGS; ASHLEY T. MCCUMMINGS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus STATE OF SOUTH Henry McMaster, CAROLINA, Attorney General Defendant - Appellee, and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Civil Rights Division Voting Section; JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, US Department of Justice; JOSEPH D. RICH, Chief US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Voting Section, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:05-cv-00566-TLW) Submitted: August 2, 2006 Decided: August 24, 2006 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reverend Franklin C. Reaves, Fannie Melette, Lamar Melette, Betty R. Davis, Lewan Melette, Susan Crawford, Frances Huggins, David Frazier, Michael Small, Beulah McCummings, Moneik M. McCummings, Ashley T. McCummings, Appellants Pro Se. Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina; Elizabeth Ramage McMahon, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Appellants seek to appeal the district court s order denying pretrial relief on matters recommendation. their to motion the objecting magistrate to judge the referral for report of and We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States is a party, a notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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). jurisdictional. This appeal period is mandatory and Browder v. Director, Dep t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court s amended judgment was entered on the docket on November 1, 2005, and the Appellants filed their notice of appeal on January 25, 2006. Because the Appellants failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. Even if the notice of appeal could be construed as a timely appeal from the district court s continued referral of matters to the magistrate judge, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal as the order is neither final nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. - 3 - See 28 U.S.C. ยงยง 1291, 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). 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 - 4 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.