Court Opinion

ID: 1006790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 19:16:15.915417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:38.282646
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 01-7858

JERRY LAMONT LINDSEY,

                                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

R. C. LEE, Warden,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CA-01-402-5-H)

Submitted:   February 14, 2002         Decided:     February 27, 2002

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Lamont Lindsey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Jerry Lamont Lindsey seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001)

complaint.    We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because

Lindsey’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 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.

220, 229 (1960)).

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

30, 2001.    Lindsey’s notice of appeal was filed on October 9, 2001.

Because Lindsey 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