UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1343
CHARLES L. FREEZE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:05-cv-00220-FWB)
Submitted: May 18, 2006 Decided: May 30, 2006
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Charles L. Freeze, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne P. Klauer, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles L. Freeze appeals the district court’s orders
denying his motion to recuse and denying relief on his civil
complaint. He also seeks to appeal the district court’s order
imposing a prefiling injunction. We affirm in part and dismiss in
part.
With regard to the district court’s orders denying relief
on Freeze’s complaint and denying his motion to recuse, we have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm this portion of the appeal for the reasons stated by the
district court. See Freeze v. Veterans Admin. Med. Ctr., No. 1:05-
cv-00220-FWB (M.D.N.C. Dec. 29, 2005).
Turning to the order imposing a prefiling injunction, we
note that Freeze challenges that order in his informal brief.
Although Freeze’s informal brief could be construed as a notice of
appeal, see Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992), the brief was
filed beyond the applicable sixty-day appeal period set forth in
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Because Freeze failed to obtain an
extension or reopening of the appeal period, see Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(5), (6), we do not have jurisdiction to review the order. See
Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (stating
that appeal period is mandatory and jurisdictional). Accordingly,
we dismiss this portion of the appeal.
- 2 -
We deny Freeze’s motions to recuse the district court
judge, to charge the district court judge with obstruction of
justice, and for an en banc hearing. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART
- 3 -