Court Opinion

ID: 999913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:32:39.100555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:22.329127
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 99-6726

ANTONIO GANTT,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

MICHELL ODOM, sued in his individual and offi-
cial capacities,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.   Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CA-98-110-5-22)

Submitted:   September 30, 1999           Decided:   October 7, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Gantt, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Coleman Jones, BOGOSLOW &
JONES, Walterboro, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Antonio Gantt seeks to appeal the district court’s order

granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant in this civil

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994).   We dismiss the appeal

for lack of jurisdiction because Gantt’s 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, 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 March

15, 1999.     Gantt’s notice of appeal was filed on May 24, 1999.

Because Gantt 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