Carlton v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. , 192 F. App'x 190 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1125
RONALD O. CARLTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:04-cv-00684-FWB)
Submitted: July 25, 2006 Decided: July 31, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald O. Carlton, Appellant Pro Se. L. Cooper Harrell, SMITH &
MOORE, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina, Edward M. Newsom, SMITH
& MOORE, L.L.P., Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ronald O. Carlton seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his products liability case against Defendant, The
Goodyear Tire Company (“Goodyear”), on Goodyear’s motion for
summary judgment. 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 granting Goodyear summary
judgment entered on December 12, 2005; thus, Carlton had until
January 11, 2006, to timely note his appeal. However, Carlton did
not file his notice of appeal until January 12, 2006. Because
Carlton 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
- 2 -