Jerome West v. D. Braxton

Filing 920080310

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7733

JEROME J. WEST, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. D. A. BRAXTON; A. KELLY HARRISON; NASEER MOBASHAR, Doctor, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:00-cv-00109-JCT)

Submitted:

February 28, 2008

Decided: March 10, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome J. West, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Jerome J. West seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his complaint without prejudice. 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 February 15, 2000. 2007.* The notice of appeal was filed on November 15,

Because West failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal and deny the motion for appointment of counsel. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). - 2 -

*

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 3 -