William Washington v. Leroy Cartledge, No. 12-7283 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7283 WILLIAM WASHINGTON, Plaintiff Appellant, v. LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden; DAN PATTERSON; N. BARBER, Chaplin; BOBBY HANKERSON, Chaplin, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (9:10-cv-03211-JFA) Submitted: October 23, 2012 Decided: November 6, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Washington, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson II, David C. Plyler, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William court s order complaint. Washington denying We relief dismiss the seeks on to his appeal 42 for appeal the U.S.C. § 1983 lack of district (2006) 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 29, July 10, 2012. * 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on Washington failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period. The notice of appeal accordingly was untimely, and we therefore grant the Appellees motion to dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because * the facts and We legal The notice of appeal is hand-dated July 10, 2012, and we assume it was deposited in the institutional internal mail system on that date. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) 2 contentions are 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.