Greenfield v. Dudley , 203 F. App'x 485 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7087
KELVIN L. GREENFIELD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
A. L. DUDLEY, Office @ Kenansville Police
Department; CHRIS SMITH, Deputy @ Duplin
County Sheriff Department; DOUG PEARSON,
District Attorney @ Duplin County Courthouse,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:05-ct-00484-BO)
Submitted: September 22, 2006 Decided: October 24, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kelvin L. Greenfield, Appellant Pro Se. Torin L. Fury, William L.
Hill, FRAZIER, FRANKLIN, HILL & FURY, RLLP, Greensboro, North
Carolina; Mark Allen Davis, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE,
PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina; Gerald Patrick Murphy, Assistant
Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kelvin L. Greenfield seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) 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
April 17, 2006. The notice of appeal was signed and mailed on June
5, 2006. Because Greenfield failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,
we grant the Appellees’ motions to 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