Reginald Evans v. Carolina Richardson, No. 19-2407 (4th Cir. 2020)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2407 REGINALD EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAROLINA RICHARDSON, Treasurer for Sumter County South Carolina; SUMTER COUNTY, South Carolina; YOLANDA JEFFERSON, Agent of Sumter County, SC; KRISTI FISHER CURTIS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:16-cv-03202-JFA) Submitted: April 21, 2020 Decided: April 27, 2020 Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald D. Evans, Appellant Pro Se. James M. Davis, Jr., LINDEMANN, DAVIS & HUGHES, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Reginald D. Evans seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018) complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. In civil cases, parties have 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 entered its order on October 9, 2019. Evans filed the notice of appeal on December 5, 2019. Because Evans 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 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

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.