Nobrega v. Pittsylvania County Sheriff's Office ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-1114
    SHAWN ALAN NOBREGA,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    PITTSYLVANIA    COUNTY    SHERIFF’S     OFFICE;
    PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY JAIL,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.  Samuel G. Wilson, District
    Judge. (7:05-cv-00124)
    Submitted: March 23, 2006                    Decided: March 30, 2006
    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Shawn Alan Nobrega, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Shawn Alan Nobrega seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order   dismissing   as    frivolous   his   
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
       (2000)
    complaint.    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 April 29, 2005.        The notice of appeal was filed on July 11,
    2005.   Because Nobrega failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
    to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny
    Nobrega’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis 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
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-1114

Judges: Wilkinson, Luttig, Williams

Filed Date: 3/30/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024