UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6298
DEVIN DENEIL DINKINS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
LAWRENCE DINKINS; SUMTER COUNTY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION;
AGENT CLEMONS,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
MAMIE ELLA SANDERS DINKINS,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (0:08-cv-00859-CMC)
Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: June 1, 2009
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Devin Deneil Dinkins, Appellant Pro Se. John Derrick Clark,
Sumter, South Carolina; James M. Davis, Jr., Joel Steve Hughes,
DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Tommy Evans,
Jr., SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Devin Deneil Dinkins seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)
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 order was entered on the docket
on October 24, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on February
17, 2009. * Because Dinkins failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period, we dismiss the appeal. In light of this disposition, we
grant the Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal and we deny
Dinkins’ motion to subpoena memorandum and supporting documents
*
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).
3
and for extension of time. 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
4