Lewis v. Sallie Mae Corp. , 218 F. App'x 255 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2185
MORRIS E. LEWIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SALLIE MAE CORPORATION (SLM), and Other
Unnamed Defendants,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (1:06-mc-00041-LMB)
Submitted: February 15, 2007 Decided: February 20, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Morris E. Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Paul Esposito, AKIN,
GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Morris E. Lewis appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for an extension of time in which to file a
notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5).* Parties in
a civil action in which the United States is not a party have
thirty days following a final order in which to file a notice of
appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The only exceptions to the
appeal period are when the district court extends the time to
appeal based upon excusable neglect under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5),
or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). These
time periods are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir.,
Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (internal quotations and
citations omitted). We review the district court’s denial of a
motion for an extension of time for abuse of discretion.
Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 76 F.3d 530, 532 n.2 (4th
Cir. 1996). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we
affirm. We deny Lewis’ “Motion to Supplement Appeals File” and
*
Although Lewis noted only the order denying an extension of
time in his notice of appeal, in his informal brief he states that
he is appealing the district court’s orders dismissing his
complaint, denying his motion to amend judgment, and denying his
amended motion to amend judgment. The latest of these orders was
entered on the district court’s docket on August 23, 2006, and
Lewis had until September 22, 2006, to file a notice of appeal. He
did not file his notice of appeal until October 27, 2006. We
therefore lack jurisdiction to consider his arguments related to
these orders.
- 2 -
his “Motion to Overcome Dismissal with Prejudice Orders.” We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -