Joseph Grate v. State of South Carolina

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1570 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/24/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1570 JOSEPH N. GRATE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:23-cv-06551-BHH) Submitted: February 20, 2025 Decided: February 24, 2025 Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph N. Grate, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1570 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/24/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Joseph N. Grate seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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 and judgment on May 13, 2024, and the appeal period expired on June 12, 2024. Grate filed the notice of appeal on June 17, 2024. Because Grate 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  The order of dismissal without prejudice is a final, appealable order because the court did not grant leave to amend. See Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 796 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc). 2