Eric Rieb v. Robert Stevenson, III, No. 11-6839 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6839 ERIC ANDREW RIEB, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge. (1:09-cv-02642-RMG) Submitted: November 3, 2011 Decided: November 16, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Andrew Rieb, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eric Andrew Rieb seeks to appeal the district court s orders granting Respondent summary judgment with respect to his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, denying reconsideration, and denying a preliminary injunction. 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 orders were entered on the docket on September respectively. 29, 2010; April 25, 2011; and May 4, 2011, The notice of appeal was filed on June 14, 2011. Because Rieb failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We also deny Rieb s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. dispense facts and legal We contentions with are 2 oral argument adequately because presented in the 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.