Peoples v. Canty , 359 F. App'x 393 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6125
ROBERT PEOPLES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL CANTY, Sergeant, Lieber Correctional Institution, in
individual capacity,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JEAN RANDAL, IGC,
Lieber Correctional Institution,
Defendants.
No. 09-6955
ROBERT PEOPLES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SERGEANT MICHAEL CANTY, Lieber Correctional Institution, all
individual capacities; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS; JEAN RANDAL, IGC, Lieber Correctional
Institution,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie,
District Judge. (8:07-cv-03475-CMC)
Submitted: October 1, 2009 Decided: December 31, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Robert Peoples seeks to appeal three rulings entered
in his civil action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006).
We dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
In No. 09-6125, Peoples seeks to appeal the order
denying his motion for reconsideration of an order denying his
motion for default judgment against Michael Canty. This court
may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,
28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order
Peoples seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See In re Bryson,
406 F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir. 2005); see also Curtiss-Wright
Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980). Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal in No. 09-6125 for lack of jurisdiction.
Turning to No. 09-6955, Peoples seeks to appeal
(1) the district court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice his
claims against Canty and Randal and dismissing without prejudice
his claims against the South Carolina Department of Corrections,
and (2) the district court’s order denying Peoples’ motion for a
new trial or to alter or amend the judgment. In civil cases
where neither the United States or its officer or agency is a
party, a notice of appeal must be filed no more than thirty days
3
after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order,
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) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted); accord Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214
(2007).
In this case, the final judgment was entered on
January 26, 2009. However, Peoples’ motion for a new trial or
to alter or amend the judgment, filed within ten days of the
January 26, 2009 judgment, stayed the appeal period. The
district court denied the motion on February 26, 2009. Because
the United States was not a party, Peoples had thirty days to
file his notice of appeal. The thirtieth day fell on Saturday,
March 28, 2009. Therefore, the appeal period did not expire
until Monday, March 30, 2009. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(3). The
notice of appeal was filed no earlier than April 30, 2009,
beyond the expiration of the appeal period. Because Peoples
failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an
extension or reopening of the appeal period in No. 09-6955, we
dismiss the appeal.
We deny Peoples’ motions for appointment of counsel.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
4
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
5