Martin v. Fahey , 103 F. App'x 722 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6233
VINCENT LAMONT MARTIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
HELEN FAHEY, Chairperson of the Virginia
Parole Board; DAVID HARKER, Vice-Chairman of
the Virginia Parole Board; CAROLE SIEVERS;
HERBERT COULTON; MICHAEL HAWES, Members of the
Virginia Parole Board,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate
Judge. (CA-03-401-3)
Submitted: June 18, 2004 Decided: July 16, 2004
Before LUTTIG, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brent A. Jackson, HILL, TUCKER, MARSH & JACKSON, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellant. Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General,
Richard C. Vorhis, Assistant Attorney General, William W. Muse,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Vincent L. Martin seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) 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 magistrate judge’s order was entered on the docket on
December 19, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on January 28,
2004. Because Martin 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
*
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate
judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).
- 3 -