Peoples v. Davis ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6973
ROBERT PEOPLES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LEON DAVIS, Sergeant, Lieber Correctional Institution; JOYCE
PERRY, Sergeant, Lieber Correctional Institution; HALLBACK,
Officer, Lieber Correctional Institution; Mr. THIERRY
NETTLES, SMU Administrator, Lieber Correctional Institution;
JEAN RANDAL, IGC, Lieber Correctional Institution; KEVIN
WILLIAMS, Lieutenant, Lieber Correctional Institution;
JOSEPH POWELL, HCA, Lieber Correctional Institution; DARYL
KING, Lieutenant, Lieber Correctional Institution; JON
OZMINT, Director, all ind. capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (8:08-cv-00251-CMC)
Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 26, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Peoples, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Todd Darwin, Ginger
Goforth, HOLCOMBE, BOMAR, GUNN & BRADFORD, PA, Spartanburg,
South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Robert Peoples seeks to appeal the district court’s
order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants in his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. 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 24, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on April
30, 2009. ∗ Because Peoples 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
∗
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. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487
U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
3
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
4