Melvin v. Cumberland County , 54 F. App'x 138 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1979
In Re: HOLT-WILLIAMSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Debtor.
JAMES D. MELVIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CUMBERLAND COUNTY; THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
WALTER L. HINSON,
Third Party Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CA-00-270-5-3F, BK-91-4878-8-ATS)
Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: December 30, 2002
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James D. Melvin, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Edward Canders,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Fayetteville, North Carolina;
John Gregory Rhyne, HINSON & RHYNE, Wilson, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
James D. Melvin seeks to appeal the district court’s order
affirming the bankruptcy court’s order which granted summary
judgment in favor of Appellees in their action seeking to collect
delinquent taxes. 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. Director, 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 July
23, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed on August 23, 2002.
Because Melvin failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant
Appellees’ motion to dismiss and 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
3