UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7769
RICHARD E. DAVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DOCTOR OHAR,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
GENE JOHNSON, Regional Director; RUFUS
FLEMING, Assistant Regional Director; RONALD
ANGELONE, Ex-Regional Director; WARDEN
GARRHITTY, Ex-Chief Warden, GRCC; G. HINKLE,
Chief Warden, GRCC; K. DAVIS, Associate
Warden; C. ALDERMAN, Associate Warden; P.
OHAI, Doctor, Medical Director, GRCC; NURSE
BURGESS, Nurse, GRCC; NURSE NHAMBURE, Nurse,
GRCC, R.N.; J. CAPPS, Grievance Coordinator;
R. JONES, Secretary, HU-8-GRCC; OFFICER
ANDERSON; P. OHAR, Doctor, Medical Director,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-1497-AM)
Submitted: January 26, 2005 Decided: February 11, 2005
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard E. Davis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Richard E. Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing without prejudice his complaint filed pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). 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 judgment was entered on the docket
on April 22, 2004. Because Davis 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.
DISMISSED
- 3 -