Sydnor v. Kuplinski , 267 F. App'x 259 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-7694
    DWAYNE E. SYDNOR,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    JOHN R. KUPLINSKI, Jail Administrator; KAVEH OFOGH, Doctor,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
    District Judge. (1:07-cv-00697)
    Submitted:     February 21, 2008            Decided:   February 27, 2008
    Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Dwayne E. Sydnor, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Dwayne E. Sydnor seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order dismissing his civil rights complaint. 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 3, 2007.    The notice of appeal was filed on November 4,
    2007.*   Because Sydnor failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
    to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
    dismiss the appeal. We deny Sydnor’s motion for seizure of medical
    records.    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
    *
    For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
    appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
    have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the
    court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 
    487 U.S. 266
     (1988).
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-7694

Citation Numbers: 267 F. App'x 259

Judges: Gregory, Motz, Per Curiam, Wilkins

Filed Date: 2/27/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023