UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6789
GRADY EDWARD LLOYD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CALVIN ANTHONY, Warden of Lee Correctional
Institution; AREVOLA THOMAS, Disciplinary
Hearing Officer; GEORGE WARDLAW, Counsel
Substitute; COUNSEL SUBSTITUTE GOFF; T. BOONE,
Administrative Worker for Disciplinary Office
at Lee Correctional Institution,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-99-3789)
Submitted: September 20, 2001 Decided: September 28, 2001
Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Grady Edward Lloyd, Appellant Pro Se. John Evans James, III, LEE,
ERTER, WILSON, JAMES, HOLLER & SMITH, L.L.C., Sumter, South Caro-
lina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Grady Edward Lloyd appeals the district court’s order granting
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in his action filed under
42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp 2001). We dismiss the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction because Lloyd’s notice of appeal was not timely
filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district
court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App.
P. 4(a)(1), 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). This appeal period is “mandatory and
jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 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 27, 2001. Lloyd’s notice of appeal was filed on April 13,
2001. Because Lloyd 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