UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6207
STUART A. MIDDLETON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL S. HAMDEN; RICHARD E. GIROUX; THEODIS
BECK; JAMES B. FRENCH,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CA-01-848-5-H)
Submitted: April 25, 2002 Decided: May 8, 2002
Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stuart A. Middleton, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Stuart Middleton seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing as frivolous his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001)
complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because
Middleton’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
December 21, 2001. Middleton’s notice of appeal was filed on
January 25, 2002.* Because Middleton 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
*
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing 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
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3