Michael Campbell v. Larry Power, No. 10-7282 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7282 MICHAEL L. CAMPBELL, a/k/a Michael Leroy Campbell, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LARRY W. POWERS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (4:08-cv-01765-HFF) Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 29, 2010 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael L. Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Todd Darwin, HOLCOMBE, BOMAR, GUNN & BRADFORD, PA, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael court s judge and Campbell adopting order L. the denying complaint. We relief dismiss the seeks to appeal recommendation on his appeal of 42 lack the U.S.C. for the district magistrate ยง 1983 of (2006) 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 August 31, 2009. September 10, 2010. * The notice of appeal was filed on Because Campbell failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. motion to assign counsel. We We also deny Campbell s dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 2 in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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.
