Green v. Philip Morris ( 2003 )

Rehearing granted, December 1, 2003
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6655
GEORGE SAMUEL GREEN, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PHILLIP MORRIS, tobacco manufacturers; BROWN &
WILLIAMSON TOBACCO COMPANY, tobacco
manufacturers; B.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY,
tobacco manufacturers,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District
Judge. (CA-03-157-2)
Submitted: June 17, 2003 Decided: July 14, 2003
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George Samuel Green, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
George Samuel Green, Jr., applies under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (“PLRA”) to file this appeal without prepayment of fees.
Green appeals the district court’s order denying him leave to
proceed on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without the
prepayment of fees. Because Green’s appeal was untimely filed, we
deny his motion to proceed under the PLRA. 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.
Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978).
The district court’s order was entered on March 5, 2003.
Green filed his notice of appeal, at the earliest, on April 15.
Thus, because Green did not file a timely appeal or obtain an
extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny his motion to
proceed on appeal without prepayment of fees and dismiss his appeal
as untimely. 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