Andred Clinton Davis, Jr. v. DONALD AMES, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-7291
ANDRED CLINTON DAVIS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DONALD AMES, Warden; JASON BRAGG, Unit Manager; RICHARD TONEY,
Captain; WOOTEN, Counselor; E. AARON, Sargent; CAPT. CLIFFORD; NURSE
BRANDY; C.O. SPEARS; LT. WILSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (2:21-cv-00106)
Submitted: July 25, 2024 Decided: July 29, 2024
Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hoyt Eric Glazer, Abraham Julian Saad, GLAZER SAAD ANDERSON LC, Huntington,
West Virginia, for Appellant. William E. Murray, BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Andred Clinton Davis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing with prejudice Davis’ civil action for
failure to prosecute. Appellees have filed two motions to dismiss on the grounds that this
appeal is untimely and that Davis waived appellate review by failing to object to the
magistrate judge’s recommendation.
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 November 1, 2023. Davis filed the notice of
appeal on December 18, 2023. Because Davis failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant Appellees’ motion to
dismiss this untimely appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny as moot Appellees’ second
motion to dismiss on the ground that Davis failed to object to the magistrate judge’s report.
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 of 2 --