UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6055
JAMES PETER DARBY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SHERIFF, Cabarrus County, North Carolina, in
his official capacity and as an individual;
CABARRUS COUNTY; UNKNOWN UNNAMED, in their
official capacities and as individuals,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 96-6508
JAMES PETER DARBY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SHERIFF, Cabarrus County, North Carolina, in
his official capacity and as an individual;
CABARRUS COUNTY; UNKNOWN UNNAMED, in their
official capacities and as individuals,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Salisbury. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-94-260-4)
Submitted: May 21, 1996 Decided: June 18, 1996
Before HALL, ERVIN, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
No. 96-6055 dismissed and No. 96-6508 affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
James Peter Darby, Appellant Pro Se. Grady Michael Barnhill,
WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
On January 11, 1996, James Darby filed an appeal in case
number 96-6055 from a district court order denying relief on his
complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). Because the district
court entered its order on December 11, 1996, the thirty-day appeal
period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) expired on January
10, 1996. Hence, Darby's appeal was filed one day late. The dis-
trict court denied Darby's motion for an extension of the appeal
period pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and Darby appeals from
the order denying that motion in appeal number 96-6508.
The time periods established by Fed. R. App. P. 4 are "manda-
tory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Correc-
tions, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson,
361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960). Moreover, in denying Darby's request for
an extension of time, the district court properly determined that
the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to
extensions of time for service of documents, such as Rule 6(e) and
Rule 5(b), have no applicability to the computation of time for
filing under Appellate Rule 4. The court also properly found that
Darby's reliance on the postal processes to timely deliver the
notice of appeal, even if reasonable, constituted insufficient
grounds to establish "excusable neglect" under Appellate Rule
4(a)(5). See Thompson v. E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 76
F.3d 530, 534 (4th Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, the district court's order in case number 96-6508
denying the motion for an extension of time is affirmed. Because we
3
lack jurisdiction to hear the merits of Darby's underlying appeal,
we grant the Appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal in case number
96-6055. 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.
No. 96-6055 - DISMISSED
No. 96-6508 - AFFIRMED
4