Anthony Wright v. Joanne Conley, No. 13-1800 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1800 ANTHONY LAMAR WRIGHT, a/k/a Anthony L. Wright, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOANNE CONLEY, in her individual capacity; DEBRA BRABHAM, in her individual capacity; WARDEN MACKIE, in his individual capacity; DR. MOORE, in his individual capacity; CHUCK FRAZIER, in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:10-cv-02444-TLW) Submitted: September 16, 2013 Decided: September 20, 2013 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Lamar Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew David Cavender, GRIFFITH, SADLER & SHARP, PA, Beaufort, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Lamar Wright seeks to appeal the district court s margin order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration magistrate judge s of the court s recommendation prior to order dismiss adopting his 42 the U.S.C. ยง 1983 (2006) civil rights action for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. 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 May 22, 2013. Accordingly, the latest day for filing a timely notice of appeal was Friday, June 21, 2013. App. P. 26(a)(1). See Fed. R. Wright s notice of appeal, however, was not received for filing until Monday, June 24, 2013. Because Wright failed to to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal as untimely. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before this 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.
