Peoples v. Davis ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6950
ROBERT PEOPLES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LEON DAVIS, Sgt. at Lieber Correctional Institution; THIERRY
D. NETTLES, AIE, Lieber Correctional Institution; JEAN
RANDAL, IGC, Lieber Correctional Institution; GARY
MANIGAULT, Lieber Correctional Institution; DARRYL MCGEE,
Lt. at Lieber Correctional Institution; JOYCE PERRY, Sgt. at
Lieber Correctional Institution; HALLBACK, Officer at Lieber
Correctional Institution,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (8:08-cv-00252-CMC)
Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 26, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Peoples, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Todd Darwin, Ginger
Goforth, HOLCOMBE, BOMAR, GUNN & BRADFORD, PA, Spartanburg,
South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Peoples seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and the district
court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
motion. 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 denying the Rule 59 motion
was entered on the docket on March 13, 2009. 1 The notice of
appeal was filed on April 30, 2009. 2 Because Peoples failed to
1
Peoples’ Rule 59(e) motion tolled the time period for
filing the notice of appeal as to the earlier order. See Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(4).
2
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. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487
U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
2
file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or
reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. Peoples’
motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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
3