Christine Samuel v. James Dickey, No. 16-2352 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2352 CHRISTINE SAMUEL, as Natural Parent and Guardian of CSD, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES H. DICKEY; JAMES H. DICKEY LAW FIRM, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:12-cv-02277-TLW) Submitted: August 24, 2017 Decided: August 28, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DIAZ, Circuit Judge. * Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James H. Dickey, Appellant Pro Se. Aaron Seth Jophlin, BELL LEGAL GROUP, Georgetown, South Carolina, for Appellee. * (2012). This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: James H. Dickey seeks to appeal the district court’s orders granting a default judgment against him and denying his two Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions. 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 October 21, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on November 28, 2016. Because Dickey failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 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.
