UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1037
TOWN OF YEMASSEE MUNICIPAL COURT,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
NANCY D. JONAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Joseph E. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge; Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CA-03-1508-9-08AJ)
Submitted: March 11, 2004 Decided: March 18, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Nancy D. Jonas, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Nancy D. Jonas seeks to appeal the district court’s order
affirming the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and
dismissing her civil action for lack of jurisdiction. We dismiss
the appeal in part for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of
appeal was not timely filed as to this order.
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. 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 that Jonas seeks to appeal was
entered on the docket on October 30, 2003. The notice of appeal
was filed on January 2, 2004. Because Jonas failed to file a
timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of
the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal to the extent that it
pertains to this order.
The notice of appeal is timely, however, as to the
district court’s orders denying Jonas’s motions for rehearing en
banc and her motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial. To
the extent that Jonas is appealing these orders, we note that she
- 2 -
was warned in the briefing order that this court would not consider
issues not specifically raised in her informal brief. See 4th Cir.
R. 34(b). Nonetheless, Jonas failed to raise any challenges to the
district court’s orders denying her post-judgment motions in her
informal brief and thus has failed to preserve any issues for our
review. Accordingly, we affirm these orders for the reasons stated
by the district court. See Yemassee Mun. Ct. v. Jonas, No.
CA-03-1508-9-08AJ (D.S.C. filed Dec. 9, 2003 & entered Dec. 10,
2003; Jan. 2, 2004; Jan. 21, 2004). 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 -