West v. Braxton , 269 F. App'x 265 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-7733
    JEROME J. WEST,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    D. A. BRAXTON; A. KELLY HARRISON; NASEER MOBASHAR, Doctor,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
    Judge. (7:00-cv-00109-JCT)
    Submitted:     February 28, 2008            Decided: March 10, 2008
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jerome J. West, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jerome J. West seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    dismissing his complaint without prejudice.   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
    February 15, 2000.   The notice of appeal was filed on November 15,
    2007.*   Because West failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
    obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss
    the appeal and deny the motion for appointment of counsel.       We
    dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
    *
    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 -
    are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-7733

Citation Numbers: 269 F. App'x 265

Judges: Michael, Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 3/10/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023