Case Name: Salathiel Franklin QUESENBERRY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. H.L. KIRKPATRICK, III, Judge; Kristen Keller Burnside; James Bare; State of West Virginia; Raleigh County Sheriff's Department, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-04-25
Citations: 33 F. App'x 95
Docket Number: No. 01-7702
Parties: Salathiel Franklin QUESENBERRY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. H.L. KIRKPATRICK, III, Judge; Kristen Keller Burnside; James Bare; State of West Virginia; Raleigh County Sheriff’s Department, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 33
Pages: 95–96

Head Matter:
Salathiel Franklin QUESENBERRY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. H.L. KIRKPATRICK, III, Judge; Kristen Keller Burnside; James Bare; State of West Virginia; Raleigh County Sheriff’s Department, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-7702.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 18, 2002.
Decided April 25, 2002.
Salathiel Franklin Quesenberry, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Salathiel Franklin Quesenberry seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Quesenberry's notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district court's final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1), 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. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).
The district court's order was entered on the docket on May 16, 2001. Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on September 27, 2001. Because Appellant failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We also deny Quesenberry's motion for appointment of counsel, his motion for a hearing, and his motion objecting to the filing fee. 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.