Yvonne Nelson v. South Carolina DSS, No. 16-1215 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1215 YVONNE NELSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; HORRY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendants – Appellees, and UNKNOWN DEFENDANT, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:15-cv-02607-RBH) Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 20, 2016 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yvonne Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Yvonne Nelson seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation without prejudice her civil action. and dismissing Nelson also seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 denying entered on the docket on August 13, 2015. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv). 2016. reconsideration was See Fed. R. App. P. The notice of appeal was filed on February 29, Because Nelson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 2 adequately 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.
