Melton Summerville v. American Federation of State,

Filing 920090303

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-2114

MELTON SUMMERVILLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AMERICAN FEDERATION EMPLOYEES; LOCAL 77, OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Thomas David Schroeder, District Judge. (1:06-cv-00719-TDS-PTS)

Submitted:

February 26, 2009

Decided:

March 3, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Melton Summerville, Appellant Pro Se. J. David James, SMITH, JAMES, ROWLETT & COHEN, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina; Michael Griffin Okun, PATTERSON HARKAVY LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Melton Summerville seeks to appeal the district

court's order granting Defendants' motion to hold Summerville in contempt and awarding Defendants compensatory damages, attorney fees, and costs. 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). is "mandatory and jurisdictional." Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) This appeal period

Browder v. Dir., Dep't of (quoting United States v.

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court's order was entered on the docket on August 26, 2008. 30, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on September

Because Summerville 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

2