Ronnie Sylvia v. Tommy Maddox

Filing 920091021

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6786

RONNIE SYLVIA, Plaintiff ­ Appellant, v. TOMMY MADDOX; TONI BANKS; D. WEAVER; N. AUSTIN, Defendants ­ Appellees, and KEITH WHITENER, Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (5:05-cv-00013-GCM)

Submitted:

October 15, 2009

Decided:

October 21, 2009

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Michael Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant. James Philip Allen, Assistant Attorney General, Joseph Edward Elder, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Ronnie orders dismissing Sylvia his seeks 42 to appeal § 1983 the district court's and

U.S.C.

(2006)

complaint

denying his motion for reconsideration.

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 orders were entered on the docket on August 7, 2007, and August 28, 2007. was filed no sooner than April 9, 2009. The notice of appeal Because Sylvia failed

to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny his motion for

appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal. oral argument because the facts and legal

We dispense with contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and oral argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2