Ware v. Williams , 120 F. App'x 493 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7505
    JOHNNY L. WARE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    T. WILLIAMS; J. L. PACE; M. E. JUSTICE; J. M.
    HARMON; A. H. SKARDON; G. L. GILLARD;
    GREENVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Beaufort.   C. Weston Houck, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-02-827)
    Submitted:   January 27, 2005             Decided:   February 3, 2005
    Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Johnny L. Ware, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Keith Wray, II, GALLIVAN,
    WHITE & BOYD, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Johnny L. Ware seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    granting summary judgment for defendants in a 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    (2000) action.    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 judgment was entered on the docket
    on March 1, 2004.   The notice of appeal was filed on September 7,
    2004.*   Because Ware 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
    *
    Because Ware was in prison at the time he filed his notice of
    appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal
    is the earliest date on which it could have been properly delivered
    to prison officials for mailing to the court. See Fed. R. App. P.
    4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 
    487 U.S. 266
    , 276 (1988).
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-7505

Citation Numbers: 120 F. App'x 493

Judges: Luttig, Duncan, Hamilton

Filed Date: 2/3/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024