Case ID: f-appx_288/html/0122-01.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

Danny Lane IVESTER, Sr., Plaintiff — Appellant, and Danny Lane Ivester, Jr., Plaintiff, v. John Leslie SMITH, Judge, Spartanburg Municipal Court in his individual and official capacity; Spartanburg, South Carolina, City of; Mark Scott, CEO City Manager in his individual & official capacity, Defendants — Appellees.
    No. 08-1591.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 15, 2008.
    Decided: Aug. 12, 2008.
    Danny Lane Ivester, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. James Dean Jolly, Jr., Logan, Jolly & Smith, LLP, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Danny Lane Ivester, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing this action. The Appellees move to dismiss the appeal as untimely. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

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 April 8, 2008, 2008 WL 1342737. The notice of appeal was filed on May 20, 2008. Because Ivester failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant the motion to 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.