Miles v. Angelone ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6738
RONALD MILES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-6739
RONALD MILES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cv-00344-TSE; 1:00-cv-00204-TSE)
Submitted: August 23, 2007 Decided: August 30, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Ronald Miles, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Miles seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion for reconsideration filed pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b), and a subsequent order imposing a prefiling
injunction. With respect to the order denying Miles’ motion for
reconsideration, 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
March 27, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on May 1, 2007.*
Because Miles failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain
an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the
appeal.
*
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).
- 3 -
With respect to the district court’s order imposing a
prefiling injunction, we have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. Miles v. Angelone, Nos. 1:00-cv-204, 1:06-cv-
344 (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 20, 2007 & entered Apr. 23, 2007). We
deny Miles’ motion for appointment of counsel. 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 IN PART
AND AFFIRMED IN PART
- 4 -