UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6970
In Re: JOSEPH MARION HEAD, JR.,
Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:06-cv-00215-LHT)
Submitted: November 19, 2008 Decided: January 28, 2009
Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Marion Head, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Marion Head, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order imposing a prefiling injunction. We dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was
not timely filed.
In cases in which the United States is not a party,
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). If the district court’s
final judgment or order is not set forth in a separate document,
the notice of appeal must be filed within 150 days of the
judgment or order. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii). The appeal
periods are “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 district
court’s docket on July 20, 2006. Because there was no separate
entry of judgment, Head’s notice of appeal was due within 150
days. The notice of appeal was not filed, however, until
March 17, 2008. Because Head failed to file a timely notice of
2
appeal * or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and deny the “Motion to Allow Cost of Filing Fees
to be Legally Paid by Appellant from his Veteran Benefits.” 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
*
Head claims that he did not receive a copy of the district
court’s order until February 2008. This does not affect the
running of the appeal period. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 77(d).
3