UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2158
DANIEL S. HOLMES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
COLONIAL HEIGHTS PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CA-03-365)
Submitted: December 18, 2003 Decided: January 15, 2004
Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel S. Holmes, Appellant Pro Se. Jenelle Elizabeth Langen,
EISENHOWER, TARBY & LAUFFER, Annandale, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Daniel S. Holmes seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing without prejudice his employment discrimination
complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because
Holmes’ notice of appeal was not timely filed.
In cases, like Holmes’, where the United States is not a
party, parties 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 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 dismissing the complaint was
entered on the docket on June 20, 2003, and the district court in
an order entered on August 11, 2003, extended the appeal period for
thirty days (i.e., September 10, 2003). Holmes’ notice of appeal
was filed on September 11, 2003. Because Holmes failed to file a
timely notice of appeal, to obtain a reopening of the appeal
period, or to file within the extension granted by the district
court, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
- 2 -
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -