Darby v. Orangeburg, (4th Cir. 2004) - Case Law - VLEX 18199178

Darby v. Orangeburg, (4th Cir. 2004)

Docket Number:03-2317
CONTENT

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-2317 THOMAS DARBY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

ORANGEBURG, City of; D ALLEN OTT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CA-01-4184-22BD-5)

Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 4, 2004

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Darby, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Coleman Jones, BOGOSLOW,

JONES, STEPHENS & DUFFIE, P.A., Walterboro, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM: Thomas Darby seeks to appeal the district court§ 1983 (2000) complaint for failing to allege

a deprivation of a federal right. 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 courtÂ’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 pe riod 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 courtÂ’s order was entered on the docket on November 1, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed on October 20,

3. Because Darby 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