Court Opinion

ID: 989540
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:08:10.474546+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:41.606325
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 95-8580

ROY ANTHONY SMITH,

                                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

JOHN A. HOLLAND, JR., M.D.,

                                             Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-94-819)

Submitted:   May 16, 1996                   Decided:   June 3, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roy Anthony Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Eugene Ornoff, PENDER
& COWARD, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
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 May 22, 1995; Appellant's notice of

appeal was filed on Dec. 19, 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

grant Appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal. We deny Appellant's

motion for appointment of counsel. 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 deci-

sional process.

                                                         DISMISSED

                                2