Peter Thomas v. Richland County Clerk of Court, No. 11-6770 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Unpublished opinion after submission on briefs: Dismissed
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6770 PETER L. THOMAS, a/k/a Peter Lloyd Thomas, a/k/a Patrick R. Harrison, Plaintiff Appellant, v. RICHLAND COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS OFFICE; JEANETTE W. MCBRIDE, Clerk of Court; ANNE G. KELLY, Chief Deputy Clerk of Court; RICHLAND COUNTY JUDICIAL CENTER, Defendants Appellees, and CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (4:11-cv-00367-JFA) Submitted: October 18, 2011 Decided: October 21, 2011 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peter L. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Peter L. Thomas appeals the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (2006) complaint. 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 May 1, 2011. The notice earliest, on June 10, 2011. of appeal was filed, at the Because Thomas failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before We dispense with contentions the court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
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.
