Case ID: f-appx_133/html/0901-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Earl THOMAS, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Captain CROSBY; Lieutenant Geneau, Defendants—Appellees, and Richmond City Jail; Sheriff Mitchell; Major Minion; Lieutenant McCray; Lieutenant Hall; Any and All Other Deputies Also Involved, Defendants.
    No. 04-7066.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 23, 2005.
    Decided: June 15, 2005.
    Earl Thomas, III, Appellant pro se.
    John Adrian Gibney, Jr., Thompson & McMullan, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Earl Thomas, III, seeks to appeal from the district court’s order denying relief in his action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). Because Thomas’ notice of appeal and request to reopen the appeal period was received in the district court after the expiration of the appeal period, we remanded the case to the district court for a determination of the timeliness of the request to reopen the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6) and Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988) (notice considered filed as of the date Appellant delivers it to prison officials for forwarding to the court).

On remand, the district court found that Thomas’ motion to reopen was not timely filed. Thus, the district court had no authority to reopen the appeal period. Accordingly, we dismiss this 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 order was entered on the docket on March 16, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed on June 21, 2004. Because Thomas failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny his motion to reopen his case and dismiss this appeal as untimely. His motion to reserve argument on issues is denied as moot. 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 
      
       Rule 4(a)(6) allows the district court to reopen the appeal period if a party did not receive notice of the judgment or order and that party files a motion to reopen within 180 days after entry of the judgment or within seven days of receiving notice of the entry, "whichever is earlier.”