Burts v. Sullivan's Body Shop , 280 F. App'x 330 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6241
ANTONIO BURTS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SULLIVAN’S BODY SHOP,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (6:06-cv-02500-HMH)
Submitted: May 30, 2008 Decided: June 10, 2008
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antonio Burts, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Burts seeks to file an appeal in his action
against Sullivan’s Body Shop. 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 final order was entered on the
docket on October 23, 2006. The notice of appeal was filed more
than a year later. Because Burts 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 in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
*
To the extent that Burts’ notice of appeal could be construed
as pertaining to the district court’s September 10, 2007 order
finding several of Burts’ post-judgment motions to be moot, we note
that the notice of appeal also is untimely as to that order.
- 2 -