Case ID: f-appx_174/html/0150-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Shawn Alan NOBREGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; Pittsylvania County Jail, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 06-1114.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 23, 2006.
    Decided: March 30, 2006.
    
      Shawn Alan Nobrega, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Shawn Alan Nobrega seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as frivolous his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty 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). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s judgment was entered on the docket on April 29, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on July 11, 2005. Because Nobrega failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny Nobrega’s motion to proceed in forma pau-peris and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED