Case ID: f-appx_2/html/0332-02.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

Maurice L. STROUD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jim PENDERGRAPH, Sheriff, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 00-7159.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 18, 2001.
    Decided Jan. 24, 2001.
    
      Maurice L. Stroud, pro se.
    Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Maurice L. Stroud seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Stroud’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1), 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. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 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 order was entered on the docket on May 15, 2000. Stroud’s notice of appeal was filed on July 24, 2000. Because he 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.