Matthew Anderson v. Bernard Mackie, No. 15-7400 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7400 MATTHEW ANDERSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. BERNARD MACKIE; MS. GASQUE, Defendants – Appellees, and SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; SERGEANT LIVINGSTON; SERGEANT CHESTNUT; MAJOR JACKSON; LIEUTENANT GIBSON, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:15-cv-01505-GRA) Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Matthew Anderson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Anderson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded 30 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 July 14, 2015. August 31, 2015. * The notice of appeal was filed on Because Anderson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 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.
