Robbie Sherron v. Butch Jackson

Filing 920090423

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7995

ROBBIE SHERRON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BUTCH JACKSON; MARY A. WILLINGHAM; F. HANS, Nurse; LINDA PADGETT; DONALD V. MICLOS; MICHAEL BELL, Defendants ­ Appellees, and NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CURTIS CLIFFORD, Dr.; DAVID M. HINDS; NURSE HAWNS, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:06-ct-03089-D)

Submitted:

March 31, 2009

Decided:

April 23, 2009

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robbie Sherron, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth F. Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM: Robbie Sherron seeks to appeal the district court's order denying hearing granting partial motion to summary to judgment for Defendants motion and a

Sherron's pursuant

compel R. Civ.

discovery, P. 26(f),

for

Fed.

motions

for

preliminary injunctions, and motions for temporary restraining orders. Sherron also seeks to appeal the district court's order This court may

denying his motion for appointment of counsel.

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28

U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). the portion of the order denying With the exception of Sherron's motions for

preliminary injunctions, the orders Sherron seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. The however, an order denying a preliminary order. injunction See 18 is,

appealable

interlocutory

U.S.C.

§ 1292(a)(1).

However, Sherron failed to file a timely notice Parties in a civil case in which the

of appeal of this order.

United States is not a party have thirty days following entry of a final order in which to file a notice of appeal. P. 4(a)(1)(a). Fed. R. App.

Upon a finding of excusable neglect or good

cause the district court may extend this period up to thirty 3

days beyond the original appeal period, or reopen the appeal period upon a party's motion. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), (6). Bowles v. (2007);

These time periods are mandatory and jurisdictional. Russell, 557 U.S. 205, ___, 127 S. Ct. 2360,

2365

Browder v. Dir., Dep't of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978). The order denying Sherron's motions for preliminary

injunctions was entered on August 4, 2008, and Sherron did not file his notice of appeal until, at the earliest, September 6, 2008, three days beyond the expiration of the thirty-day appeal period. * Therefore, Sherron's notice of appeal was untimely. Accordingly, jurisdiction. we dismiss the appeal for lack of

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

*

See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

4