Case ID: f-appx_40/html/0856-01.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

Herman K. SIMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eldridge E. HODGE; Michael York; J. Watkins, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 02-6457.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 11, 2002.
    Decided July 22, 2002.
    Herman K. Simpson, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Herman K. Simpson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001), for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp.2001). Simpson also appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). We dismiss in part and affirm in part.

Parties in a civil action, in which 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, see Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. RApp. 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.Edüd 259 (I960)).

The district court’s order denying § 1983 relief was entered on the docket on November 6, 2001. Simpson’s notice of appeal was filed on March 14, 2002. Because Simpson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

With regard to the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion, we have reviewed the record, the district court’s order, and Simpson’s informal brief filed in this court. Because Simpson failed to challenge on appeal the district court’s disposition of the Rule 60(b) motion, he has waived appellate review of that order. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). We therefore affirm this portion of the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Simpson, No. CA-01-806-1 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 19, 2002). 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.