Fordham v. Bennett , 272 F. App'x 297 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7003
CHRISTOPHER JAMES FORDHAM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BOYD BENNETT; THEODIS BECK; DENNIS ROWLAND;
MICHAEL A. MUNNS; TARQUINTUS WALSER; NURSE
PLUMMER; DOUGLAS HARRIS; MCCOY, Correctional
Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
District Judge. (5:06-ct-03126-FL)
Submitted: January 15, 2008 Decided: April 10, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judge Gregory
dissents.
Christopher James Fordham, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher James Fordham seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 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 order was entered on the docket on
May 9, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on June 29, 2007.*
Because Fordham failed to file a timely notice of appeal or 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.
Judge Gregory would construe Fordham’s notice of appeal
as a motion for extension of time to file an appeal and would
*
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the
court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
- 2 -
remand this case to the district court for a ruling on that motion.
Accordingly, he dissents from the dismissal of this appeal.
DISMISSED
- 3 -