Court Opinion

ID: 997211
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 16:52:58.413466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:38.493621
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 98-7257

GARY LEWIS MILLER,

                                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

OFFICER   RICHARDSON;   SERGEANT   POYTHRESS;
MARGARET JAMES, Officer; OFFICER PLEASENT,

                                           Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-98-28-5-BR)

Submitted:   November 5, 1998          Decided:     November 23, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Lewis Miller, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Gary Lewis Miller filed an untimely notice of appeal. We

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing

notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods

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)). Parties to civil actions have

thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of

appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The

only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court

extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

     The district court entered its order on March 26, 1998;

Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on August 10, 1998, which is

beyond the thirty-day appeal period. Appellant’s failure to note a

timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves

this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appel-

lant’s appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We deny Appellant’s

motion objecting to the terms of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-

tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                         DISMISSED

                                2