UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6125

ROBERT PEOPLES, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

MICHAEL CANTY, Sergeant, Lieber Correctional Institution, in 

individual capacity, 

 Defendant - Appellee, 

 and 

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JEAN RANDAL, IGC, 

Lieber Correctional Institution, 

 Defendants. 

No. 09-6955

ROBERT PEOPLES, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

SERGEANT MICHAEL CANTY, Lieber Correctional Institution, all 

individual capacities; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS; JEAN RANDAL, IGC, Lieber Correctional 

Institution, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District 

of South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, 

District Judge. (8:07-cv-03475-CMC) 

Submitted: October 1, 2009 Decided: December 31, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Robert Peoples, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Todd Darwin, Ginger 

Goforth, HOLCOMBE, BOMAR, GUNN & BRADFORD, PA, Spartanburg, 

South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

2 
PER CURIAM: 

 Robert Peoples seeks to appeal three rulings entered 

in his civil action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006). 

We dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. 

 In No. 09-6125, Peoples seeks to appeal the order 

denying his motion for reconsideration of an order denying his 

motion for default judgment against Michael Canty. This court 

may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 

28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. 

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order 

Peoples seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an 

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See In re Bryson, 

406 F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir. 2005); see also Curtiss-Wright 

Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980). Accordingly, we 

dismiss the appeal in No. 09-6125 for lack of jurisdiction. 

 Turning to No. 09-6955, Peoples seeks to appeal 

(1) the district court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice his 

claims against Canty and Randal and dismissing without prejudice 

his claims against the South Carolina Department of Corrections, 

and (2) the district court’s order denying Peoples’ motion for a 

new trial or to alter or amend the judgment. In civil cases 

where neither the United States or its officer or agency is a 

party, a notice of appeal must be filed no more than thirty days 

3 
after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, 

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) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted); accord Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 

(2007). 

 In this case, the final judgment was entered on 

January 26, 2009. However, Peoples’ motion for a new trial or 

to alter or amend the judgment, filed within ten days of the 

January 26, 2009 judgment, stayed the appeal period. The 

district court denied the motion on February 26, 2009. Because 

the United States was not a party, Peoples had thirty days to 

file his notice of appeal. The thirtieth day fell on Saturday, 

March 28, 2009. Therefore, the appeal period did not expire 

until Monday, March 30, 2009. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(3). The 

notice of appeal was filed no earlier than April 30, 2009, 

beyond the expiration of the appeal period. Because Peoples 

failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an 

extension or reopening of the appeal period in No. 09-6955, we 

dismiss the appeal. 

 We deny Peoples’ motions for appointment of counsel. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

4 
5 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED