Case ID: f-appx_85/html/0889-01.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

Leroy S. DOTSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tomlin FERGUSON, Former Plant Manager; Ricky Johnson, Plant Manager; Mark Allen, Superintendent; Rob Olson, Matt Build Supervisor, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 03-7352.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 18, 2003.
    Decided Jan. 15, 2004.
    Leroy S. Dotson, Jr., Appellant pro se.
    Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Leroy S. Dotson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties in a civil action where the United States is not a party, 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). However, a court may extend the appeals period for fourteen days upon a party’s timely motion to reopen the appeal period. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, 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 order reopening the time for Dotson to file a notice of appeal was entered on the docket on July 7, 2003, affording Dotson until July 21, 2003, to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). However, Dotson’s notice of appeal was dated August 20, 2003, and filed on August 21, 2003. Because Dotson failed to file a timely notice of appeal within the extended fourteen-day appeal period, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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