UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6914
ROBERT JOSEPH WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
R. A. YOUNG; KENNETH L. OSBORNE; JIM E. WARD,
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-01-1-7-M)
Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 26, 2001
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Robert Joseph Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert Joseph Williams appeals the district court’s order dis-
missing without prejudice his § 1983 action and denying his Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of that order.
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, Dept of Corr., 434 U.S. 257,
264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229
(1960)).
The district court’s order dismissing Williams’ action was
entered on the docket on February 20, 2001. Williams’ notice of
appeal was filed on May 11, 2001.* Williams did not obtain an
extension or reopening of the appeal period. Moreover, Williams
did not file his motion to reconsider within ten days of the dis-
trict court’s order dismissing his suit, consequently the time
period for filing his appeal of that order was not tolled. See
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4); Panhorst v. United States, 241 F.3d 367,
370 (4th Cir. 2001). Therefore, Williams’ appeal is timely only as
*
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
to the district court’s denial of his subsequent motion for
reconsideration.
This court reviews a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse
of discretion. See NOW v. Operation Rescue, 47 F.3d 667, 669 (4th
Cir. 1995) (per curiam). We have reviewed the record and conclude
the district court’s denial of Williams’ motion for reconsideration
was not an abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Williams’
appeal of the district court’s order dismissing his § 1983 action
and affirm the district court’s denial of Williams’ motion for
reconsideration. United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229
(1960). 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 IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART
3