Hayes v. United States Department of Justice , 157 F. App'x 598 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7056
DONALD EUGENE HAYES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; CUMBERLAND
COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; DARRELL SCALES,
Detective; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION; JOHN HAIR, Judge; N. DONALDSON,
Judge,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (CA-04-20-5-BO)
Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 6, 2005
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donald Eugene Hayes, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Donald Eugene Hayes seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his complaint seeking damages for alleged
violations of his constitutional rights. We dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely
filed.
When the United States or its officer or agency is a
party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days
after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order,
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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. Director, 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
March 9, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed on June 22, 2005.
Because Hayes 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 -