Rehearing granted and appeal
dismissed by opinion filed 10/1/01
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6202
PETER MOORE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
NURSE ALBRIGHT; WEBSTER ANDERSON, Montgomery
County Prison Officer; GARY CRONITE, Main-
tenance Officer; J. D. TERRY, Superintendent;
RONALD J. ANGELONE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District
Judge. (CA-00-924-7)
Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 8, 2001
Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Peter Moore, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Peter Moore, a Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.
2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2000). We
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Moore’s notice
of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the dis-
trict 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
December 11, 2000. Moore’s notice of appeal was filed on January
12, 2001 at the earliest.* Because Moore 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
*
For the purpose of this appeal we assume that the date ap-
pearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have
been given to prison officials for mailing. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3