Roberts v. Ward

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6140
BARRY C. ROBERTS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
E. P. WARD, Officer; E. KELLY, Sergeant;
CAPTAIN HATCHETT; CAPTAIN TAYLOR,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-02-852-2)
Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 18, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Barry C. Roberts, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Barry C. Roberts seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). 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. Director, 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
December 3, 2002. The notice of appeal was dated January 9, 2003,
and filed on January 14, 2003. Even giving Roberts the benefit of
Fed. R. App. P. 4(c), he failed to file a timely notice of appeal
or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period.
Accordingly, 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