Ben Smith v. Joseph Coffy, No. 11-1773 (4th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1773 BEN HOWARD SMITH, Plaintiff Appellant, v. JOSEPH K. COFFY, Defendant Appellee, and BOB ATKINSON; PERCY B. HARVIN; L. KEITH JOSEY, JR.; RONNIE STEWART, all in their individual and official capacity; LINDA G. WALTERS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:08-cv-00201-RMG) Submitted: November 15, 2011 Decided: November 17, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ben Howard Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Shaun C. Kent, COFFEY CHANDLER KENT & MCKENZIE, PA, Manning, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Ben Howard Smith appeals the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his complaint alleging fraud, and violations of 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 1983, 1985 (2006), and due process. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. In a civil case, 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 June 13, 2011. 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on July 19, Because Smith failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 3 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.