Jones v. Daly ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-7625
    RONNIE DARNELL JONES,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    ROBERT   DALY,   Director,  Anderson   County
    Detention Center; MS. ROUNDTREE, Head Nurse,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.   Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
    (3:05-cv-01715-TLW)
    Submitted:   February 22, 2007            Decided:   March 2, 2007
    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ronnie Darnell Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt,
    MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood, South
    Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Ronnie Darnell Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    dismissing his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2000) complaint.    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 7, 2006.   The notice of appeal was filed on September 13,
    2006.*   Because Jones failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
    to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant
    the Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
    *
    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. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 
    487 U.S. 266
     (1988).
    - 2 -
    presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-7625

Judges: Williams, Motz, Shedd

Filed Date: 3/2/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024