UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-8045
ELRIDGE V. HILLS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SHARON PATTERSON, Disciplinary Hearing
Officer; ROBERT EUDY, Correctional Officer at
Kershaw Correctional Institution; SERGEANT
ROBERTSON; LIEUTENANT SMITH; DERWIN NEISMAN,
Major; JON OZMINT, Director of South Carolina
Department of Corrections; ROBERT E. WARD,
Director of Operations; DAVID M. TATARSKY,
General Counsel; KELLI G. MADDOX, Office of
General Counsel; MARY D. ANDERSON, Office of
General Counsel and Director of Internal
Affairs; BUCK ARMSTRONG, Counsel Substitute,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (4:05-cv-00689)
Submitted: April 19, 2007 Decided: April 24, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eldridge V. Hills, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Elridge V. Hills seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) claim for failure to
comply with a magistrate judge’s order. 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 order was entered on the docket on
October 23, 2006. The notice of appeal was filed on November 27,
2006.* Because Hills 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
*
Hills acknowledges that he gave his notice of appeal to
prison officials for mailing to the court on this date. Fed. R.
App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
- 3 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 4 -