Rodney Sansbury v. Lieutenant Riley, No. 11-6474 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6474 RODNEY NEIL SANSBURY, Plaintiff Appellant, v. LIEUTENANT RILEY, Defendant Appellee, and SANDRA HOLLAND, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (3:09-cv-01074-RMG) Submitted: July 21, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit Judges, July 26, 2011 and HAMILTON, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney Neil Sansbury, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rodney court s order Neil Sansbury adopting the seeks to magistrate appeal the judge s district report recommendation to dismiss for failure to prosecute. and 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 November 9, 2010. 2011. * The notice of appeal was filed on April 1, Because Sansbury failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the certificate appeal. of We deny appealability, to Sansbury s appoint motions counsel, itemized proceedings at the Government s expense. for and a for We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are * This is the date on which the prison mailroom stamped the envelope containing the notice of appeal as received. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 2 adequately presented 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.
