Case Name: Michael McEVILY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer KEATON; Officer Humphries; Jane Doe, a/k/a Miss Sue, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-03-06
Citations: 30 F. App'x 200
Docket Number: No. 01-7902
Parties: Michael McEVILY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer KEATON; Officer Humphries; Jane Doe, a/k/a Miss Sue, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINS, DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 30
Pages: 200–201

Head Matter:
Michael McEVILY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer KEATON; Officer Humphries; Jane Doe, a/k/a Miss Sue, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-7902.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2002.
Decided March 6, 2002.
Michael McEvily, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINS, DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Michael McEvily seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because McEvily's notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after 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 September 17, 2001. Giving him the benefit of Fed. R.App. P. 4(c) and Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), McEvily's notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on October 28, 2001. Because McEvily 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.