Royster v. Wall ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-2136
ANNELLA A. ROYSTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PATRICIA M. WALL; JOHN D. NETHERLAND; VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-98-690-3)
Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 27, 1999
Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Annella A. Royster, Appellant Pro Se. Guy Winston Horsley, Jr.,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Annella A. Royster seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s
order* dismissing her civil action. We dismiss the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction because Royster’s notice of appeal was not timely
filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district
court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App.
P. 4(b)(1), 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 Corrections, 434
U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.
220, 229 (1960)).
The magistrate judge’s order was entered on the docket on July
15, 1999. Royster’s notice of appeal was filed on August 18, 1999.
Because Royster 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
*
The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdic-
tion. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c)(1) (West Supp. 1999).
2