Sylvia v. Maddox

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6786
RONNIE SYLVIA,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
TOMMY MADDOX; TONI BANKS; D. WEAVER; N. AUSTIN,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
KEITH WHITENER,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (5:05-cv-00013-GCM)
Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 21, 2009
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Michael Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington,
Kentucky, for Appellant. James Philip Allen, Assistant Attorney
General, Joseph Edward Elder, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Sylvia seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and
denying his motion for reconsideration. 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. Dir., 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 orders were entered on the docket
on August 7, 2007, and August 28, 2007. The notice of appeal
was filed no sooner than April 9, 2009. Because Sylvia failed
to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or
reopening of the appeal period, we deny his motion for
appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and oral
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2