Richardson v. Williams , 282 F. App'x 262 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1067
CHARLIE LEE RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHARLES J. WILLIAMS, Human Resource Director of Cabarrus
County Schools,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin J. Reidinger,
District Judge. (3:05-cv-00211-MR-DCK)
Submitted: June 19, 2008 Decided: June 23, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charlie L. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Lee Rainey,
WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charlie L. Richardson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his post-judgment motions following the
denial of relief on his civil 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 order was entered on the docket on
November 9, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on December 11,
2007. Because Richardson 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
- 2 -