Case Name: In re Arthur O. ARMSTRONG, Petitioner-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-02-13
Citations: 3 F. App'x 107
Docket Number: No. 00-2558
Parties: In re Arthur O. ARMSTRONG, Petitioner-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 3
Pages: 107–108

Head Matter:
In re Arthur O. ARMSTRONG, Petitioner-Appellant.
No. 00-2558.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 8, 2001.
Decided Feb. 13, 2001.
Arthur O. Armstrong, petitioner pro se.
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Arthur O. Armstrong seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for leave to file a complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Armstrong'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.RApp.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 (I960)).
The district court's order was entered on the docket on October 4, 1999. Armstrong's notice of appeal was filed on December 8, 2000. Because Armstrong 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.