Case Name: Carl BARLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Keith ADAMS, Inmate Officer; Keith Brown, Sgt.; James Woodward, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-06-26
Citations: 38 F. App'x 935
Docket Number: No. 02-6494
Parties: Carl BARLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Keith ADAMS, Inmate Officer; Keith Brown, Sgt.; James Woodward, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 38
Pages: 935–935

Head Matter:
Carl BARLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Keith ADAMS, Inmate Officer; Keith Brown, Sgt.; James Woodward, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-6494.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 20, 2002.
Decided June 26, 2002.
Carl Barley, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Carl Barley seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Barley's 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, 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 February 7, 2002. Barley's notice of appeal was filed on March 18, 2002. Because Barley failed to file a timely notice of appeal or move for and 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.