UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1512

LOUISIANA PLACE ASSOCIATES, LLC; WOOD ROBERTS, LLC; ROMAN 

CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SANTA ROSA CALIFORNIA, THE; TINY LITTLE 

INVESTMENT CLUB; BRISTOL AIR INC., 

 Plaintiffs - Appellees, 

 v. 

MARK ANTHONY STROUPE, d/b/a Practical Holdings Limited, 

 Defendant - Appellant, 

 and 

PRACTICAL HOLDINGS LIMITED; SUSIE ELAINE STROUPE; FIRST 

SPRINGFIELD, First Springfield Securities Inc.; FIRST 

SPRINGFIELD, First Springfield Securities Limited; DONALD E. 

RADLE; GEORGE J. DAVIS, 

 Defendants. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(2:99-cv-00586-DCN) 

Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 23, 2008

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 
Mark Anthony Stroupe, Appellant Pro Se. William C. Cleveland, 

III, BUIST, MOORE, SMYTHE, MCGEE, PA, Charleston, South 

Carolina; Thomas Stuart White, HAYNSWORTH, SINKLER & BOYD, PA, 

Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

2 
PER CURIAM: 

Mark Anthony Stroupe seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying his motion requesting an order to show 

cause as to why the Plaintiffs should not be held in contempt of 

court and his motion for relief from judgment, and denying 

reconsideration thereof. 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). See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2107 (2000). 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)). Accord Bowles v. Russell, 127 S. Ct. 2360 (2007). 

The district court’s order denying reconsideration was 

entered on October 25, 2007.1 The notice of appeal was filed on 

 1

 The district court’s order denying the motion for a show 

cause order and the motion for relief from judgment was entered 

on October 12, 2007. Stroupe timely filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 

59(e) motion for reconsideration, which was denied on October 

25, 2007. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A), the thirty 

day appeal period runs from the date of entry of the order 

denying the Rule 59(e) motion. 

3 
4 

April 24, 2008.2 Because Stroupe 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

 

 2

 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could 

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to 

the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 

(1988).