UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2161
GEORGE SALEMO, President, Childers & Jenkins,
Incorporated,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BANK OF AMERICA, NA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-04-128-3-MU)
Submitted: March 17, 2006 Decided: April 11, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George Salemo, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Vasco, William Michael
Starr, NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
George Salemo seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his civil 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. Dir., 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 May 25, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on September 30,
2005.* Because Salemo 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
*
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the
court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
- 2 -