Jovan M. Brown v. Ron Lawrenz; Eric Ramos; Lisa Young

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6045
JOVAN M. BROWN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RON LAWRENZ; ERIC RAMOS; LISA YOUNG,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:22-cv-01705-HMH)
Submitted: August 12, 2024 Decided: August 16, 2024
Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jovan M. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Quintin Atkinson, Mark Victor Gende,
SWEENY, WINGATE & BARROW, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jovan M. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s September 7, 2023, order and
judgment accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, granting the Defendants’
motion for summary judgment, and dismissing Brown’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. 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). We dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
The district court entered its order and judgment on September 7, 2023, and the
appeal period expired on October 9, 2023. Brown filed the notice of appeal on
December 27, 2023.∗ On limited remand, the court denied Brown’s motion to reopen the
appeal period. Because Brown failed to file a timely notice of appeal and the court declined
to reopen 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 postmark date appearing on the
envelope containing the notice of appeal is the earliest date Brown 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 --