Court Opinion

ID: 1020998
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:59:47.103089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:06:59.898374
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-1844

ADRIAN CARTER,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

          and

LINDA S. RAYNOR,

                                                          Plaintiff,

          versus

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (5:06-cv-00051-sgw; 5:06-cv-00052; 5:06-cv-00054)

Submitted: November 15, 2006              Decided:   November 17, 2006

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adrian Carter, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Adrian Carter seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing Carter’s motion “to remove Cheryl Dickensheets from DSS

and have DSS pay her misdeeds”.   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 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)).

          The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

June 20, 2006.    The notice of appeal was filed on July 21, 2006.

Because Carter 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

                                - 2 -