UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2036
JOSEPH R. THAMES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DEBORAH Y. MILLER,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 04-1097
JOSEPH R. THAMES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DEBORAH Y. MILLER,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CA-03-419-5-H)
Submitted: August 30, 2004 Decided: September 16, 2004
Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph R. Thames, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah Y. Miller, Appellee
Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Joseph R. Thames seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders remanding this action to state court for lack of federal
jurisdiction and denying his subsequent motion to reconsider the
remand order. The district court’s remand order is not reviewable.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2000). Therefore the appeal in No. 03-
2036 must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
In No. 04-1097, Thames seeks to appeal the district
court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. 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
December 3, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on January 9,
2004. Because Thames failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss his appeal from the denial of his motion for
reconsideration.
Accordingly, we dismiss both appeals for lack of
jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
- 3 -
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 4 -