Wyatt v. Walker , 99 F. App'x 485 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1116
WILLIAM H. WYATT, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MS. WALKER; KAMALA B. WILSON, Individually and
in their capacity as employees of Paul Bland;
PAUL BLAND, Individually and in his capacity
as an attorney,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (CA-03-922)
Submitted: May 27, 2004 Decided: June 3, 2004
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William H. Wyatt, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William H. Wyatt, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. 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
December 19, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on January 21,
2004. Because Wyatt failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny
Wyatt’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 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 -