Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-01067/USCOURTS-ca4-08-01067-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charlie L. Richardson
Appellant
Charles J. Williams
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1067

CHARLIE LEE RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CHARLES J. WILLIAMS, Human Resource Director of Cabarrus

County Schools,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin J. Reidinger,

District Judge. (3:05-cv-00211-MR-DCK)

Submitted: June 19, 2008 Decided: June 23, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charlie L. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Lee Rainey,

WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-1067 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/23/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Charlie L. Richardson seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying his post-judgment motions following the

denial of relief on his civil complaint. 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

November 9, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on December 11,

2007. Because Richardson 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: 08-1067 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/23/2008 Pg: 2 of 2