Michael A. Breyan v. Captain Thomas Commander; A/w Kenneth Sharp; Warden Cecilia Reynolds

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6320
MICHAEL A. BREYAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAPTAIN THOMAS COMMANDER; A/W KENNETH SHARP; WARDEN
CECILIA REYNOLDS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:16-cv-03926-BHH)
Submitted: June 25, 2024 Decided: June 28, 2024
Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Breyan, Appellant Pro Se. David Cornwell Holler, SMITH ROBINSON
HOLLER DUBOSE & MORGAN, LLC, Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Michael A. Breyan seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation, granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. 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 14, 2018, and the appeal period expired
on September 13, 2018. Breyan filed the notice of appeal on March 27, 2024.* Because
Breyan 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 Breyan could have delivered the notice to facility 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 --