Parker v. Director of Department of Corrections , 356 F. App'x 671 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-7272
    SAMSON M. PARKER,
    Petitioner – Appellant,
    v.
    DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
    Respondent – Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   Liam O’Grady, District
    Judge. (1:08-cv-00780-LO-TCB)
    Submitted:    December 15, 2009             Decided:   December 18, 2009
    Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Samson M. Parker, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Samson M. Parker seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order    denying     Parker’s   motion     to    reopen    the     time    to    file    a
    notice    of    appeal.         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   August     6,   2009.       The     notice    of     appeal    was     filed       on
    July 6, 2009.        Because Parker 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-7272

Citation Numbers: 356 F. App'x 671

Judges: Michael, Duncan, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/18/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024