Lunsford v. Parrotte

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6868
EDWARD BERNARD LUNSFORD, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ROBERT PARROTTE; DON MOBLEY; HERB PARRISH;
RENA MCNIEL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District
Judge. (CA-98-150-5-BR)
Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 7, 1999
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward Bernard Lunsford, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Edward Bernard Lunsford, Sr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.
1999) complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
because Lunsford’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the dis-
trict court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(1), 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 May
13, 1998. Lunsford’s notice of appeal was filed on April 15, 1999.
Because Lunsford failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, 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