Parham v. White ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    
    
                                  No. 09-8199
    
    
    ROBERT S. PARHAM, JR.,
    
                    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    
              v.
    
    PETER WHITE; RUBY WILLIAMS; JAMES BAINES; DR. DRAKE; SCOTT
    HUGHES,
    
                    Defendants - Appellees.
    
    
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (5:09-ct-03022-BO)
    
    
    Submitted:   March 16, 2010                 Decided:   March 24, 2010
    
    
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
    
    
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    
    
    Robert S. Parham, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    
    
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    
                Robert S. Parham, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
    
    court’s   order    dismissing         his   action    under   42    U.S.C.   § 1983
    
    (2006).    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   September    29,   2009.         The   notice    of   appeal   was    filed   on
    
    December 9, 2009.       Because Parham 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
    

Document Info

DocketNumber: 098199

Filed Date: 3/24/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/31/2014