Court Opinion

ID: 988367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 22:51:32.410788+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:24.948954
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                           No. 95-7340

RONALD HAMILTON JAMES,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

         versus

BENJAMIN SMITH, Sergeant; A. VINCENT, Corpo-
ral; DEPUTY GATTISON,

                                            Defendants - Appellees,

         and

NEW HANOVER COUNTY JAIL,

                                                          Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District
Judge. (CA-95-47)

Submitted:   January 18, 1996            Decided:   February 1, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Hamilton James, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:

     Appellant noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal

period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an

extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day

period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to

relief under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time periods established
by Fed. R. App. P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v.
Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting

United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district

court entered its order on June 9, 1995; Appellant's notice of

appeal was filed on August 16, 1995. Appellant's failure to note a

timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives
this court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore dis-

miss 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

                                3