Larry James Tyler v. South Carolina

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 26-6061
LARRY JAMES TYLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN MCCRORY WILSON, SR;
APPELLATE COUNSEL VICTOR ROSS SEEGER; POLICE OFFICER ERIC
HODGES; ATTORNEY RICHARD JONES; MEGAN HARRIGAN JAMESON;
ATTORNEY JOHNNY ELLIS JAMES, JR.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (4:25-cv-06114-MGL-MHC)
Submitted: June 18, 2026 Decided: June 24, 2026
Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry James Tyler, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Larry James Tyler seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying Tyler’s motion for a preliminary
injunction and/or a temporary restraining order. 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 8, 2025, and the appeal period expired
on November 7, 2025. Tyler filed the notice of appeal on December 28, 2025.* Because
Tyler 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
* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of
appeal is the earliest date that Tyler, who was incarcerated, could have delivered the notice
to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487
U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

-- 2 of 2 --