Robert Peoples v. Michael Canty, No. 09-6125 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6125 ROBERT PEOPLES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL CANTY, Sergeant, Lieber Correctional Institution, in individual capacity, Defendant - Appellee, and SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JEAN RANDAL, IGC, Lieber Correctional Institution, Defendants. No. 09-6955 ROBERT PEOPLES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SERGEANT MICHAEL CANTY, Lieber Correctional Institution, all individual capacities; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JEAN RANDAL, IGC, Lieber Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (8:07-cv-03475-CMC) Submitted: October 1, 2009 Decided: December 31, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Peoples, Appellant Pro Se. Goforth, HOLCOMBE, BOMAR, GUNN & South Carolina, for Appellees. Andrew Todd Darwin, Ginger BRADFORD, PA, Spartanburg, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Robert Peoples seeks to appeal three rulings entered in his civil action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006). We dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. In No. 09-6125, Peoples seeks to appeal the order denying his motion for reconsideration of an order denying his motion for default judgment against Michael Canty. may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, This court 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). Peoples seeks to appeal is neither a final appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Cohen v. The order order nor an See In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir. 2005); see also Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in No. 09-6125 for lack of jurisdiction. Turning to No. 09-6955, Peoples seeks to appeal (1) the district court s judgment dismissing with prejudice his claims against Canty and Randal and dismissing without prejudice his claims against the South Carolina Department of Corrections, and (2) the district court s order denying Peoples motion for a new trial or to alter or amend the judgment. In civil cases where neither the United States or its officer or agency is a party, a notice of appeal must be filed no more than thirty days 3 after the entry of the district court s final judgment or order, 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). is mandatory and jurisdictional. This appeal period Browder v. Dir., Dep t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); accord Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). In this January 26, 2009. case, the final judgment was entered on However, Peoples motion for a new trial or to alter or amend the judgment, filed within ten days of the January 26, 2009 judgment, stayed the appeal period. district court denied the motion on February 26, 2009. The Because the United States was not a party, Peoples had thirty days to file his notice of appeal. March 28, 2009. The thirtieth day fell on Saturday, Therefore, the appeal period did not expire until Monday, March 30, 2009. notice of appeal was filed See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(3). The no earlier than beyond the expiration of the appeal period. failed to file a timely notice of appeal April 30, 2009, Because Peoples or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period in No. 09-6955, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Peoples motions for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument 4 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 5

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.