Clinkscales v. Ducworth

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1228
WILLIAM NEWTON CLINKSCALES, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GEORGE M. DUCWORTH, individually; DANNY
LAFEYETTE DURHAM, individually; LAYTON
CREAMER, individually; ANDREW SAVAGE; ALLAN
HOLMES; COMING BALL GIBBS,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
WILLIAM YARBOROUGH,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CA-
02-3043-8-26BI)
Submitted: January 14, 2005 Decided: February 10, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Newton Clinkscales, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Henry Dargan
McMaster, Attorney General, Clyde Havird Jones, Jr., Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, William Henry Davidson,
II, David Leon Morrison, Matthew Blaine Rosbrugh, DAVIDSON,
MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, Elizabeth
Ramage McMahon, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbia, South
Carolina; William Joseph Sussman, Augusta, Georgia; James Dean
Jolly, Jr., Stacey Todd Coffee, LOGAN, JOLLY & SMITH, L.L.P.,
Anderson, South Carolina; Carl Everrette Pierce, II, Joseph Camden
Wilson, IV, PIERCE, HERNS, SLOAN & MCLEOD, Charleston, South
Carolina; Allan Riley Holmes, Coming Ball Gibbs, Jr., GIBBS &
HOLMES, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
William Newton Clinkscales, Jr., seeks to appeal the
district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of
the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of the
defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. 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 Corrections,
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
January 7, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed on February 23,
2004. Because Clinkscales failed to file a timely notice of appeal
or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
grant the Appellees’ motions to 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
- 3 -