Matson v. Court of Brunswick
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN W. MATSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COURT OF BRUNSWICK COUNTY, North Carolina; HONORABLE NANCY CHISHOLM; HONORABLE NAPOLEON B. BAREFOOT, JR.; REBECCA JONES; EDWARD GEDDINGS; ADRIAN IAPALUCCI; JASON HARRIS, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:07-cv-00099)
Submitted: May 22, 2008
May 27, 2008
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven W. Matson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Steven W. Matson seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his civil 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). and jurisdictional." This appeal period is "mandatory
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 order was entered on the docket on August 30, 2007. 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on October 3,
Because Matson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Matson leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and 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.
- 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?