Taylor v. Easley Police Dept ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 96-6119
    JAMES ALLEN TAYLOR,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    EASLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.    Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (CA-94-1784-3-6BC)
    Submitted:   October 8, 1996              Decided:   October 23, 1996
    Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James Allen Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. James Victor McDade, DOYLE
    & O'ROURKE, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss the
    appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
    The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by
    Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and jurisdiction-
    al." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 
    434 U.S. 257
    , 264
    (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 
    361 U.S. 220
    , 229
    (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within which to
    file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or
    final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the
    appeal period are when the district court extends the time to ap-
    peal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period
    under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).
    Appellant's failure to file a timely notice of appeal* or to
    obtain either an extension or a reopening of the appeal period
    leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of
    Appellant's appeal. We therefore 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
    *
    For the purposes of this appeal we assume that the date Ap-
    pellant wrote on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it would
    have been submitted to prison authorities. See Houston v. Lack, 
    487 U.S. 266
     (1988).
    2
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 96-6119

Filed Date: 10/23/1996

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021