Alfred Thomas v. Christy Mann

Filing 920090727

Rehearing granted, January 13, 2010

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1342

ALFRED T. THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHRISTY T. MANN, Judge; MECKLENBURG COUNTY GENERAL DISTRICT & CIRCUIT COURTS; MCDOWELL STREET CENTER FOR FAMILY LAW, INCORPORATED; DONNA JACKSON; AIDA CORREA; PETER GORMAN; JAMES G. MIDDLEBROOKS; GRAHAM C. MULLEN; NORTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:08-cv-00502-FDW-1)

Submitted:

July 23, 2009

Decided:

July 27, 2009

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alfred T. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Alfred T. Thomas seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his civil rights complaint. 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)); accord Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, ___, 127 S. Ct. 2360, 2366 (2007) ("Today we make clear that the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement."). The district court's order was entered on the docket on January 23, 2009. 20, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on March

Because Thomas failed to file a timely notice of

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

2

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

3