Case ID: f-appx_57/html/0591-02.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

Barry C. ROBERTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E.P. WARD, Officer; E. Kelly, Sergeant; Captain Hatchett; Captain Taylor, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 03-6140.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 6, 2003.
    Decided March 18, 2003.
    Barry C. Roberts, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Barry C. Roberts seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). 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. 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 was entered on the docket on December 3, 2002. The notice of appeal was dated January 9, 2003, and filed on January 14, 2003. Even giving Roberts the benefit of Fed. R.App. P. 4(c), he failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period. Accordingly, 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.