Filed: May 31, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7726 WILLIAM SINGLETARY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. EDGEFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT; EDGEFIELD COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; KEN DURHAM, Major; TOWN OF EDGEFIELD; RONALD CARTER, Chief of Police; ADELL DOLBEY, Sheriff of Edgefield County; EDGEFIELD DETENTION CENTER; SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, SLED; REGINALD I. LLOYD, Director; PAUL GRANT, Major, SLED; CHRIS WASH, Captain, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the Unite
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7726 WILLIAM SINGLETARY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. EDGEFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT; EDGEFIELD COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; KEN DURHAM, Major; TOWN OF EDGEFIELD; RONALD CARTER, Chief of Police; ADELL DOLBEY, Sheriff of Edgefield County; EDGEFIELD DETENTION CENTER; SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, SLED; REGINALD I. LLOYD, Director; PAUL GRANT, Major, SLED; CHRIS WASH, Captain, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7726
WILLIAM SINGLETARY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EDGEFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT; EDGEFIELD COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT; KEN DURHAM, Major; TOWN OF EDGEFIELD; RONALD
CARTER, Chief of Police; ADELL DOLBEY, Sheriff of Edgefield
County; EDGEFIELD DETENTION CENTER; SOUTH CAROLINA LAW
ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, SLED; REGINALD I. LLOYD, Director;
PAUL GRANT, Major, SLED; CHRIS WASH, Captain,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(9:09-cv-01079-TLW)
Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Singletary, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel C. Plyler,
DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Russell W.
Harter, Jr., CHAPMAN, HARTER & GROVES, PA, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Singletary seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. 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 October 1, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on December
10, 2010. * Because Singletary failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period, we dismiss the appeal. Further, we deny Singletary’s
request to proceed in forma pauperis, as well as all pending
motions, including his motion to be relocated; motion for stay
and to remand to county court; motion for a contempt citation;
*
For the purposes of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest it could have
been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the
court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack,
487 U.S. 266,
276 (1988).
2
motion for expedited review; motion to appoint counsel; and
motion for an ex-parte hearing. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3