Foster v. Duke , 240 F. App'x 599 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-8074
TRACY ARTHUR FOSTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RICHARD T. DUKE; MICKEY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:04-ct-00298-BO)
Submitted: June 8, 2007 Decided: July 16, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tracy Arthur Foster, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
After the district court dismissed as frivolous Tracy
Foster’s civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983(2000), Tracy filed a pleading in which he restated the claims
raised in his complaint. The district court docketed this pleading
as a notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction because Tracy’s pleading failed to comply with Fed. R.
App. P. 3, and as a consequence failed to invoke the jurisdiction
of this court.
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). A proper notice of appeal must specify the
parties to the case, the order appealed from, and the court to
which the appeal is taken. Fed. R. App. P. 3(c). Tracy’s
post-judgment pleading filed in the district court fails to comply
with this rule.
Because Tracy failed to invoke the jurisdiction of this
court, we dismiss the appeal.* We also deny Tracy’s motion for
appointment of counsel. 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
*
To the extent that Tracy’s informal brief could be construed
as a notice of appeal, it was untimely. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(1)(A).
- 2 -