Case Name: James Curtis SOWELLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DILLON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; Johnny Sapp, Captain; All Subordinates Correction Officers; Judge Davis, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-01
Citations: 243 F. App'x 788
Docket Number: No. 07-6136
Parties: James Curtis SOWELLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DILLON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; Johnny Sapp, Captain; All Subordinates Correction Officers; Judge Davis, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 243
Pages: 788–789

Head Matter:
James Curtis SOWELLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DILLON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; Johnny Sapp, Captain; All Subordinates Correction Officers; Judge Davis, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-6136.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 18, 2007.
Decided: Aug. 1, 2007.
James Curtis Sowells, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Curtis Sowells seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. 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 December 18, 2006. The notice of appeal can be deemed filed, at the earliest, on January 22, 2007. Because Sowells 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.
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).