UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6681
WILLIAM DEANS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SHEILA LINDSEY, in official and private capacity; SOUTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS
TREATMENT PROGRAM,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:07-cv-03247-CMC)
Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: August 27, 2009
Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
William Deans, Appellant Pro Se. Janet Carol Brooks, Daniel Roy
Settana, Jr., MCKAY, CAUTHEN, SETTANA & STUBLEY, PA, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Deans seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint, and
denying Deans’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief. We
dismiss in part and affirm in part.
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. 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) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). Accord Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205
(2007). Because Deans filed his appeal of the district court’s
original order more than thirty days after the entry of
judgment, we deny his appeal of this judgment as untimely. Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).
Deans’s notice of appeal was timely as to the order
denying Deans’s Rule 60(b) motion. We find that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying Deans’s Rule 60(b)
motion. See MLC Automotive, LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d
269, 277 (4th Cir. 2008) (reviewing the denial of a Rule 60(b)
motion for abuse of discretion). Therefore, we affirm the
2
district court’s denial of Deans’s motion. See Deans v.
Lindsey, No. 3:07-cv-03247-CMC (D.S.C. Apr. 1, 2009). 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;
DISMISSED IN PART
3