UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6109
JOHN E. DANIELS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CAPTAIN WILLIAMS, Lexington County Detention
Center; MAJOR HARRIS, Lexington County
Detention Center; LIEUTENANT GARRISON,
Lexington County Detention Center, sued in
their official, individual and personal
capacity,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
LEXINGTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (CA-01-2762-9-12)
Submitted: April 15, 2004 Decided: April 22, 2004
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John E. Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Blaine Rosbrugh,
DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
John E. Daniels seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal
was 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 order was entered on the docket on
November 12, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on December 29,
2003.* Because Daniels 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 the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
*
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume this date is the
date the notice of appeal was delivered to prison officials for
mailing to the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack,
487 U.S. 266 (1988).
- 3 -
DISMISSED
- 4 -