Gantt v. Odom

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6726 ANTONIO GANTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHELL ODOM, sued in his individual and offi- cial capacities, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-98-110-5-22) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 7, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio Gantt, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Coleman Jones, BOGOSLOW & JONES, Walterboro, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Antonio Gantt seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Gantt’s 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, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), 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. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 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 March 15, 1999. Gantt’s notice of appeal was filed on May 24, 1999. Because Gantt failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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 2