Hamilton v. Moore

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6340
GARNARIS HAMILTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL MOORE, Director of South Carolina De-
partment of Corrections; DEBRA BARNWELL, of
Internal Affairs; GENE NOLES, of Inmate
Grievance Board,
Defendants - Appellees..
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-97-587-20BD)
Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 17, 1998
Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Garnaris Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se. James D. Brice, GIBBES,
GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal
are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and
jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434
U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.
220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within
which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judg-
ments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions
to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time
to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal
period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).
The district court entered its order on January 21, 1998;
Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on February 24, 1998, which
is beyond the thirty-day appeal period. Appellant’s failure to note
a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves
this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appel-
lant’s appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2