Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-01321/USCOURTS-ca4-08-01321-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund, Incorporated
Appellee
Daniel Johnson Willis
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1321

DANIEL JOHNSON WILLIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NORTH CAROLINA CLEAN WATER MANAGEMENT TRUST FUND,

INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,

Senior District Judge. (4:07-mc-00010)

Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 24, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Johnson Willis, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-1321 Doc: 11 Filed: 07/24/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Johnson Willis seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying him leave to file a new pleading and denying

all outstanding motions. 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. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

December 18, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on February 19,

2008. Because Willis failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, 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

Appeal: 08-1321 Doc: 11 Filed: 07/24/2008 Pg: 2 of 2