UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7736
TERENCE TERELL BRYAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 05-7743
TERENCE TERELL BRYAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
LIEUTENANT QUICK; SERGEANT JOHNSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 05-7745
TERENCE TERELL BRYAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
EVANS GRIEVANCE STAFF,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CA-04-2260-4; CA-04-2355-4; CA-04-2361-4)
Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 26, 2006
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
No. 05-7743, affirmed; Nos. 05-7736 & 05-7745, dismissed by
unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terence Terell Bryan, Appellant Pro Se. Edgar Lloyd Willcox, II,
WILLCOX, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Terence Terell Bryan
appeals the district court’s judgments adopting the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation, dismissing his complaints and
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions. We dismiss the appeals
in 05-7736 and 05-7745 for lack of jurisdiction because the notices
of appeal were not timely filed. We affirm the judgment and order
entered in 05-7743.
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). A timely filed Rule 59(e) motion tolls the appeal
period until the motion is disposed. The district court’s orders
denying the Rule 59(e) motions were entered on September 27, 2005.
The notices of appeal were filed, at the earliest, on October 28,
2005.* Because Bryan failed to file timely notices of appeal or
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss
the appeals.
*
For the purpose of these appeals, we assume the dates
appearing on the notices of appeal are the earliest date they could
have been properly 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 -
With respect to 05-7743, we have reviewed the record, the
district court’s order, the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation and affirm for the reasons of the district court.
See Bryan v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corr., No. CA-04-2355-4
(D.S.C. Sept. 16 & Oct. 14, 2005).
Accordingly, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Bryan has filed a motion for injunctive relief in no. 05-7736. We
deny the motion. 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.
No. 05-7743 - AFFIRMED
Nos. 05-7736 & 05-7745 - DISMISSED
- 4 -