Jeffrey Degree v. Blacksburg Police Department; Cherokee County Sheriff’s Department

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7381
JEFFREY DEGREE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BLACKSBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT; CHEROKEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Spartanburg. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (7:22-cv-02259-BHH)
Submitted: February 21, 2023 Decided: February 24, 2023
Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Degree, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Degree seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the
court’s orders. 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 August 15, 2022. Degree filed the document
construed as his notice of appeal1 on November 21, 2022.2 Because Degree failed to file
a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal.
1 To the extent Degree seeks appellate review of the district court’s order pursuant
to a petition for a writ of mandamus, such review is not available by way of mandamus.
See In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007) (explaining that
mandamus “may not be used as a substitute for appeal”).
2 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the postmark date appearing on the
envelope containing the notice of appeal is the earliest date Degree 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 3 --

3
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 of 3 --