IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-60873
Conference Calendar
CHARLIE TAYLOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BETTY FOSTER; WALTER BOOKER; W.L. HOLMAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:00-CV-168-P
--------------------
April 10, 2001
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charlie Taylor, Mississippi prisoner # R6798, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint.
Taylor’s notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after
the district court entered its first judgment of dismissal and
more than thirty days following the denial of Taylor’s first
motion for reconsideration. It was, therefore, untimely and we
are without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. See FED. R.
APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A); Robbins v. Maggio, 750 F.2d 405, 408 (5th
Cir. 1985). Taylor’s first post-judgment motion did not suspend
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-60873
-2-
the time for filing the notice of appeal as it was filed more
than ten days following entry of judgment. See FED. R. APP. P.
4(a)(4)(A); Hamilton Plaintiffs v. Williams Plaintiffs, 147 F.3d
367, 371 n.10 (5th Cir. 1998).
Although Taylor filed a second motion for reconsideration to
which he attached additional evidence, it does not appear that
the notice of appeal references the denial of this motion. Even
if the notice of appeal is construed as being from the second
motion, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying it. The evidence shows that Taylor did not complete the
third step of the Administrative Remedy Program because he failed
to submit the required form; thus, he did not exhaust his
administrative remedies.
For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction with respect to the underlying judgment and the
denial of the first motion for reconsideration. We AFFIRM the
denial of the second motion for reconsideration. We DENY as moot
Taylor’s request to obtain a copy of certain correspondence, his
motions to supplement the record, and his motion to obtain a copy
of the district court record.
DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION; AFFIRMED IN
PART; MOTIONS DENIED AS MOOT.