Court Opinion

ID: 991142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:32:23.742867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:32:28.149021
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 96-2580

DALLAS B. LANIER,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,

                                              Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District
Judge. (CA-96-285-5-BO)

Submitted:   December 19, 1996          Decided:     December 31, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dallas B. Lanier, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Appellant 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 judg-

ments 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 July 11, 1996; Appel-

lant's notice of appeal was filed on October 18, 1996. Appellant's

failure to note a timely appeal or obtain either an extension or a

reopening of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdic-

tion to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We therefore

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-

rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

                                                         DISMISSED

                                2