RICHARDSON v. WILLIAMS, 282 Fed.Appx. 262 (4th Cir. 2008)

No. 08-1067.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: June 19, 2008.
Decided: June 23, 2008.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin J. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:05-cv-00211-MR-DCK).

Charlie L. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Lee Rainey, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge Rice, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charlie L. Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his post-judgment motions following the denial of relief on his civil complaint. 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

Page 263

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, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259
(1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on November 9, 2007, 2007 WL 3355669. The notice of appeal was filed on December 11, 2007. Because Richardson 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.