Bowler v. Young

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7090 JOSEPH BOWLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus S.K. YOUNG, Warden; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER LINGERFELT; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FLEENOR, Defendants - Appellees. No. 03-7102 JOSEPH BOWLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus S.K. YOUNG, Defendant - Appellee. No. 03-7111 JOSEPH BOWLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus I. HAMILTON, Defendant - Appellee. No. 03-7113 JOSEPH BOWLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus S.K. YOUNG; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HAMILTON; LIEUTENANT COMPTON; LIEUTENANT JONES; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BLILEY; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER LINGERFELT; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MCCRAY; SERGEANT YOUNCE; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FLEENOR; SERGEANT COLLINS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-231-7, CA-02-1227-7, CA-03-10-7, CA-03-148) Submitted: September 30, 2003 Decided: October 8, 2003 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 2 Joseph Bowler, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 3 PER CURIAM: Joseph Bowler seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motions to reinstate four previously dismissed actions filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notices of appeal were not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 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 Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s orders denying reinstatement were entered on the docket on June 11, 2003. The notices of appeal were postmarked July 14, 2003, and filed on July 15, 2003. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c). Because Bowler failed to file timely notices of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeals. We deny Bowler’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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 4