Cole v. Teamsters Local 391 , 359 F. App'x 377 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1507
RAY A. COLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 391; DONNY BROWN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David
Schroeder, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00499-TDS-WWD)
Submitted: November 16, 2009 Decided: December 30, 2009
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ray A. Cole, Appellant Pro Se. J. David James, SMITH, JAMES,
ROWLETT & COHEN, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ray A. Cole seeks to appeal the district court’s order
adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing his civil action against Teamsters Local 391 and
Donny Brown. 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. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S.
205, 214 (2007); see United States v. Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 685
(4th Cir. 2009) (discussing Bowles and the appeal periods under
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket
on March 30, 2009. Accordingly, in order for Cole’s appeal to
be timely, it must have been filed by April 29, 2009. Cole did
not file a notice of appeal until April 30, 2009. Because Cole
failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an
extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3