Case Name: Robert S. PARHAM, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Peter WHITE; Ruby Williams; James Baines; Dr. Drake; Scott Hughes, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-24
Citations: 371 F. App'x 445
Docket Number: No. 09-8199
Parties: Robert S. PARHAM, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Peter WHITE; Ruby Williams; James Baines; Dr. Drake; Scott Hughes, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 371
Pages: 445–446

Head Matter:
Robert S. PARHAM, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Peter WHITE; Ruby Williams; James Baines; Dr. Drake; Scott Hughes, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-8199.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 16, 2010.
Decided: March 24, 2010.
Robert S. Parham, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert S. Parham, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006). 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, 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 September 29, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on December 9, 2009. Because Parham 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.