UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7415
BILL DOUGLAS PAILIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RESTON HOSPITAL CENTER, Incorporated; PADMA K.
SHUKLA, MD, Physician/ER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District
Judge. (CA-04-1152-1)
Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 2, 2006
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bill Douglas Pailin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Bill Douglas Pailin seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to
state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2000). We
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Pailin’s notice
of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the
district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), 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
Corrections, 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 its docket on
July 25, 2005. Pailin’s notice of appeal was filed on September 2,
2005.* Because Pailin 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
*
For the purpose of this appeal, we accept as true Pailin’s
statement in his informal brief on appeal, that he delivered his
notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing on September 2,
2005. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988).
- 2 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -