UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6457
HERMAN K. SIMPSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ELDRIDGE E. HODGE; MICHAEL YORK; J. WATKINS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-01-806-1)
Submitted: June 11, 2002 Decided: July 22, 2002
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Herman K. Simpson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Herman K. Simpson appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.
2001), for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West
Supp. 2001). Simpson also appeals from the district court’s order
denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We dismiss
in part and affirm in part.
Parties in a civil action, in which the United States is not
a party, are accorded thirty days after the 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. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257,
264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229
(1960)).
The district court’s order denying § 1983 relief was entered
on the docket on November 6, 2001. Simpson’s notice of appeal was
filed on March 14, 2002. Because Simpson failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the
appeal period, we dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
With regard to the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion, we have
reviewed the record, the district court’s order, and Simpson’s
2
informal brief filed in this court. Because Simpson failed to
challenge on appeal the district court’s disposition of the Rule
60(b) motion, he has waived appellate review of that order. 4th
Cir. R. 34(b). We therefore affirm this portion of the appeal on
the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Simpson, No.
CA-01-806-1 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 19, 2002). 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART
3