UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8101
STEVEN LEWIS BARNES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
E. QUATTLEBAUM, Sergeant, individually and official
capacity; MAJOR JACKSON, individually and official capacity;
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (4:08-cv-02197-MBS)
Submitted: May 22, 2010 Decided: May 25, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven Lewis Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann,
DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steven Lewis Barnes seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and dismissing Barnes’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint
without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. 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 September 29, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on
October 30, 2009.* Because Barnes failed to file a timely notice
of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period, we grant the Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal.
*
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).
2
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
3