Court Opinion

ID: 1022415
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:21:52.350957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:05.673692
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 06-7937

WILLIAM PERRY,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

MR. BELCHER, Southampton County “Magistrate”,

                                                Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:06-cv-00428-RBS)

Submitted:   April 19, 2007                 Decided:   April 24, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Perry, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

          William Perry seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b) (2000).   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

July 27, 2006.   The notice of appeal was filed on August 30, 2006.*

Because Perry 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

     *
      For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the
court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

                               - 2 -