Summerville v. American Federation of State , 314 F. App'x 613 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2114
MELTON SUMMERVILLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES; LOCAL 77,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Thomas David Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:06-cv-00719-TDS-PTS)
Submitted: February 26, 2009 Decided: March 3, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Melton Summerville, Appellant Pro Se. J. David James, SMITH,
JAMES, ROWLETT & COHEN, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina; Michael
Griffin Okun, PATTERSON HARKAVY LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Melton Summerville seeks to appeal the district
court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to hold Summerville in
contempt and awarding Defendants compensatory damages, attorney
fees, and costs. 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 August 26, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on September
30, 2008. Because Summerville 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