Jamison v. Myers
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
CECIL FITZGERALD JAMISON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR R. MYERS; CAPTAIN REFRO; BOB SEFERS, Kitchen Supervisor Aramark; LIEUTENANT R. WATSON; LIEUTENANT FRIEDLEY, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (9:05-cv-03364-RBH)
February 21, 2008
February 25, 2008
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cecil Fitzgerald Jamison, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, Matthew Blaine Rosbrugh, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Joel Morris Bondurant, Jr., William Francis Marion, Jr., HAYNSWORTH, SINKLER & BOYD, PA, Greenville, South Carolina; James Anthony Mabry, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Cecil Fitzgerald Jamison seeks to appeal the district court's adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). 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. Director, 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 The notice of appeal was filed, at the Because Jamison failed to file a
on December 21, 2006.
earliest, on July 11, 2007.
timely notice of appeal and is not entitled to reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We
deny Jamison's motion for preparation of transcripts at government expense. 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 -
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?