Court Opinion

ID: 1011668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:31:41.971325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:21.024757
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 03-1905

BRENDA C. ARMSTEAD,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

JERRY WHITMORE,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CA-02-1098-1)

Submitted:   September 30, 2003           Decided:   October 7, 2003

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brenda C. Armstead, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Brenda C. Armstead seeks to appeal the district court’s order

adopting the order of the magistrate judge denying her request to

proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing her civil complaint.    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. Director, 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 May

28, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on July 21, 2003.   Because

Armstead failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an

extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny her motion for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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