Case Name: Dwayne EVANS; Amanda Evans; Dwayne Bryan Evans, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION; Arthur Griffin, Jr., individually and as chairperson; Wilhelmenia Rembert, Dr.; John W. Lassiter; Larry Gauvreau; Vilma D. Leake, Dr.; George R. Dunlap; Louise S. Woods; Molly Griffin; Lee Kindberg, Dr., individually and as board members; James L. Pughsley, Dr., individually and as superintendent; Louis H. Layne, Dr., individually and as regional superintendent; Homer Townsend, individually and as principal; A.B. Crank, individually and as assistant principal; Ashly Kimber, individually and as teacher; Cynthia Johnson, individually and as police officer; H. Etienue, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-14
Citations: 133 F. App'x 894
Docket Number: No. 05-1215
Parties: Dwayne EVANS; Amanda Evans; Dwayne Bryan Evans, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION; Arthur Griffin, Jr., individually and as chairperson; Wilhelmenia Rembert, Dr.; John W. Lassiter; Larry Gauvreau; Vilma D. Leake, Dr.; George R. Dunlap; Louise S. Woods; Molly Griffin; Lee Kindberg, Dr., individually and as board members; James L. Pughsley, Dr., individually and as superintendent; Louis H. Layne, Dr., individually and as regional superintendent; Homer Townsend, individually and as principal; A.B. Crank, individually and as assistant principal; Ashly Kimber, individually and as teacher; Cynthia Johnson, individually and as police officer; H. Etienue, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 133
Pages: 894–894

Head Matter:
Dwayne EVANS; Amanda Evans; Dwayne Bryan Evans, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION; Arthur Griffin, Jr., individually and as chairperson; Wilhelmenia Rembert, Dr.; John W. Lassiter; Larry Gauvreau; Vilma D. Leake, Dr.; George R. Dunlap; Louise S. Woods; Molly Griffin; Lee Kindberg, Dr., individually and as board members; James L. Pughsley, Dr., individually and as superintendent; Louis H. Layne, Dr., individually and as regional superintendent; Homer Townsend, individually and as principal; A.B. Crank, individually and as assistant principal; Ashly Kimber, individually and as teacher; Cynthia Johnson, individually and as police officer; H. Etienue, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-1215.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 9, 2005.
Decided: June 14, 2005.
Dwayne Evans, Amanda Evans, Dwayne Bryan Evans, Appellants pro se.
James G. Middlebrooks, Mark Weston Johnson, Helms Mulliss & Wicker, PPLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellants seek to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing their civil rights complaint. 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. RApp. 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. Director, 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 judgment was entered on the docket on January 20, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on February 23, 2005. Because Appellants 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