Court Opinion

ID: 1021446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:06:41.195479+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:10:47.152108
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-7325

COURTNEY D. HAMMOND,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

PAUL LANTEIGNE, Sheriff, VA Beach Correctional
Center,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (3:06-cv-00266-RLW)

Submitted:   December 21, 2006            Decided: January 4, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Courtney D. Hammond, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Courtney D. Hammond seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his action for failure to comply with a court

order.   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

May 30, 2006.   The notice of appeal was filed on July 18, 2006.*

Because Hammond failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal.      We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

     *
      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
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                     DISMISSED

                                3