UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1038

ROBERT DEREK LURCH, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

FAYETTEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT; THE PANTRY, INC., 

Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:13-cv-00394-BO) 

Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: April 22, 2016

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Robert Derek Lurch, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher M. Hinnant, 

CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Wilmington, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Robert Derek Lurch seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing his civil action, its order denying his motion to 

reopen, and its order denying his motion for reconsideration. 

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the 

notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded 30 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). “Lack of notice of 

the entry does not affect the time for appeal or relieve-or 

authorize the court to relieve-a party for failing to appeal 

within the time allowed, except as allowed by Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure (4)(a).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 77(d)(2). 

Rule 4(a)(6) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 

permits the reopening of the appeal period if a party has not 

received notice of the judgment or order within 21 days after 

entry, but the motion requesting such relief must be filed 

within 180 days after entry of the judgment or 14 days after the 

party received notice of the judgment or order, whichever is 

earlier. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time requirements of 
3

Rule 4(a) are mandatory and jurisdictional. Bowles v. Russell, 

551 U.S. 205, 208-14 (2007). 

The district court’s orders were entered on the docket on 

August 1, 2013, September 23, 2015, and November 6, 2015, 

respectively. The notice of appeal was filed on January 6, 

2016.* In the notice, Lurch appears to claim that he was not 

contacted regarding the dismissal of his action in 2013. 

However, the 180-day reopening period expired well before Lurch 

filed his notice of appeal. Thus, Lurch is not eligible for

reopening of the appeal period with respect to the August 1, 

2013, order. See Nunley v. City of Los Angeles, 52 F.3d 792, 

794-95 (9th Cir. 1995); Hensley v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 

651 F.2d 226, 228 (4th Cir. 1981). Additionally, there is no 

indication from the record that Lurch did not receive notice of 

the district court’s September and November 2015 denial orders 

within 21 days of their entry. Lurch further did not move for 

an extension of the appeal periods. 

Accordingly, because Lurch failed to file a timely notice 

of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal periods and is 

 * It appears Lurch was incarcerated when he filed his notice 

of appeal. Accordingly, for purposes of this appeal, we assume 

that the postmark date appearing on the envelope containing the 

undated 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, 276 (1988). 
4

not eligible for a reopening of the appeal periods, we dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED