Willis v. Town of Trenton NC ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 95-2779
    D. JOHNSON WILLIS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    and
    EARNESTINE BROWN; JAMES EDWARD RHODES; AMY
    COX; JAMES MEADOWS; LENA BROWN; NELSON DOVE;
    ROSETTA MEADOWS; THERESA MURRELL; JAMES G.
    GRADY; ALBERT H. BROWN; ELLEN CROUELL;
    FRANKLIN BROWN,
    Plaintiffs,
    versus
    TOWN OF TRENTON, NORTH CAROLINA; COUNTY OF
    JONES, NORTH CAROLINA; NORTH CAROLINA DEPART-
    MENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND NATURAL
    RESOURCES,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Defendant.
    No. 95-2822
    D. JOHNSON WILLIS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    and
    JAMES EDWARD RHODES; VELMA MCMILLIAN; MAMIE
    RHODES; HELEN BURNEY; BARBARA BURNEY; SUZETTE
    BRANCH; LAURA MORGAN; ORESLEY WILLIAMS;
    EARNESTINE BROWN; IRISH BURNEY,
    Plaintiffs,
    versus
    JONES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA; STATE OF NORTH
    CAROLINA,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    JAMES E. STEWART AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED;
    NEUSE RIVER COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS; NORTH
    CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, and its
    Entity, Division of Community Assistance; U.S.
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, and
    its Entity, Office of Fair Housing; HAROLD
    KOONCE; C. DAVID HARRIS AND ASSOCIATES,
    Defendants.
    2
    No. 95-2955
    D. JOHNSON WILLIS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    and
    JAMES EDWARD RHODES; VELMA MCMILLIAN; MAMIE
    RHODES; HELEN BURNEY; BARBARA BURNEY; SUZETTE
    BRANCH; LAURA MORGAN; ORESLEY WILLIAMS;
    EARNESTINE BROWN; IRISH BURNEY,
    Plaintiffs,
    versus
    JONES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA; STATE OF NORTH
    CAROLINA,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    JAMES E. STEWART AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED;
    NEUSE RIVER COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS; NORTH
    CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, and its
    Entity, Division of Community Assistance; U.S.
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, and
    its Entity, Office of Fair Housing; HAROLD
    KOONCE; C. DAVID HARRIS AND ASSOCIATES,
    Defendants.
    3
    No. 95-2995
    D. JOHNSON WILLIS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    and
    HARDY BROCK; BARBARA BURNEY; LENA BROWN; EDNA
    BROWN; JAMES EDWARD RHODES; FANNIE MCDANIEL;
    EARNESTINE BROWN; BLANCHIE DOVE; BLANCHE DOVE,
    Plaintiffs,
    versus
    TOWN OF TRENTON, NORTH CAROLINA; COUNTY OF
    JONES, NORTH CAROLINA,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    ANN BROCK; EDWARD EUBANKS; CHARLES JONES, Mem-
    bers of the Town Council of Trenton; C. GLENN
    SPIVEY, Clerk to the Town Council; NOLAN B.
    JONES, Chairman of the Jones County Commis-
    sioners; HORACE B. PHILLIPS; ROBERT WILLIAM
    MATTOCKS; CHARLES BATTLE, JR.; LESLIE DEWEY
    STRAYHORN, Members of the Jones County Com-
    missioners; LARRY P. MEADOWS, Jones County
    Manager, JOFFREE T. LEGGETT, Mayor of Trenton,
    Defendants.
    4
    No. 95-2996
    DANIEL J. WILLIS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    TOWN OF TRENTON, NORTH CAROLINA,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    No. 95-2997
    D. JOHNSON WILLIS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    and
    HARDY BROCK; ANITA B. BROWN; EARNESTINE BROWN;
    LENA BROWN; DEBRA CURETON,
    Plaintiffs,
    versus
    TOWN OF TRENTON, NORTH CAROLINA,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    5
    No. 95-2998
    DANIEL J. WILLIS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    TOWN OF TRENTON, NORTH CAROLINA,
    Defendant - Appellee,
    and
    JOFFREE T. LEGGETT, Mayor of the Town of
    Trenton; EDWARD EUBANKS, Member of the Town
    Council of Trenton; ANN BROCK, Member of the
    Town Council of Trenton; CHARLES JONES, Member
    of the Town Council of Trenton; CHARLES R.
    HUGHES, Chairman of Election of Jones County,
    Defendants.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,
    District Judge. (CA-93-79-4-H, CA-93-23-4-H, CA-92-92-4-H, CA-92-
    107-4-H, CA-92-148-4-H, CA-92-159-4-H)
    No. 95-2935
    DANIEL J. WILLIS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    6
    TOWN OF TRENTON, NORTH CAROLINA,
    Defendant - Appellee,
    and
    JOFFREE T. LEGGETT, Mayor of the Town of
    Trenton; EDWARD EUBANKS, Member of the Town
    Council of Trenton; ANN BROCK, Member of the
    Town Council of Trenton; CHARLES JONES, Member
    of the Town Council of Trenton; CHARLES R.
    HUGHES, Chairman of Election of Jones County,
    Defendants.
    No. 95-2940
    D. JOHNSON WILLIS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    and
    HARDY BROCK; BARBARA BURNEY; LENA BROWN; EDNA
    BROWN; JAMES EDWARD RHODES; FANNIE MCDANIEL;
    EARNESTINE BROWN,
    Plaintiffs,
    versus
    TOWN OF TRENTON, NORTH CAROLINA; COUNTY OF
    JONES, NORTH CAROLINA,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    7
    and
    ANN BROCK; EDWARD EUBANKS; CHARLES JONES, Mem-
    bers of the Town Council of Trenton; C. GLENN
    SPIVEY, Clerk to the Town Council; NOLAN B.
    JONES, Chairman of the Jones County Commis-
    sioners; HORACE B. PHILLIPS; ROBERT WILLIAM
    MATTOCKS; CHARLES BATTLE, JR.; LESLIE DEWEY
    STRAYHORN, Members of the Jones County Com-
    missioners; LARRY P. MEADOWS, Jones County
    Manager,
    Defendants.
    No. 95-2941
    DANIEL J. WILLIS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    TOWN OF TRENTON, NORTH CAROLINA,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    No. 95-2942
    D. JOHNSON WILLIS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    and
    8
    9
    HARDY BROCK; ANITA B. BROWN; EARNESTINE BROWN;
    LENA BROWN; DEBRA CURETON,
    Plaintiffs,
    versus
    TOWN OF TRENTON, NORTH CAROLINA,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
    trict of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard, District
    Judge. (CA-92-92-4-H, CA-92-107-4-H, CA-92-148-4-H, CA-92-159-4-H)
    Submitted:   January 11, 1996          Decided:   January 23, 1996
    Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    D. Johnson Willis, a/k/a Daniel J. Willis, Appellant Pro Se.
    Robert Scott Pierce, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Winston-
    Salem, North Carolina; Daniel Calvin Oakley, Assistant Attorney
    General, Charles Jerome Murray, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
    NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina; Cheryl A. Marteney, WARD
    & SMITH, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    10
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant noted the appeals in Nos. 95-2779, 95-2822, 95-2935,
    95-2940, 95-2941, and 95-2942 outside the appeal period established
    by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain extensions of the
    appeal periods within the additional thirty-day period provided by
    Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to relief under Fed.
    R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time periods established by Fed. R. App. P.
    4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of
    Corrections, 
    434 U.S. 257
    , 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.
    Robinson, 
    361 U.S. 220
    , 229 (1960)). The district court entered its
    orders on October 14, 1993, January 12 and 13, 1994, and March 22
    and 30, 1995. Appellant's notices of appeal were filed on Septem-
    ber 25 and 26, 1995, October 16 and 30, 1995, and November 7, 1995.
    Appellant's failure to note timely appeals or obtain extensions of
    the appeal periods deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider
    these cases. We therefore dismiss these appeals.
    Appellant timely appealed the district court orders entered on
    October 16, 1995, and November 3, 1995, in Nos. 95-2955, 95-2995,
    95-2996, 95-2997, and 95-2998. The subjects of these appeals are
    the district court's orders striking Appellant's untimely notices
    of appeal. The district court did not have jurisdiction to strike
    the untimely notices of appeal. See Liles v. South Carolina Dep't
    of Corrections, 
    414 F.2d 612
    , 614 (4th Cir. 1969). However, we
    dismiss these appeals as moot because the untimely appeals were
    11
    transmitted to this court, so the Appellant received the relief he
    sought.
    We deny the Appellant's motions for oral argument because the
    facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
    rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    12