Romallus O. Murphy; David M. Dansby, Jr v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth., No. CA-99-236-3-H W.D.N.C. filed Mar. 13, 2001

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1538
ROMALLUS O. MURPHY; DAVID M. DANSBY, JR.,
Appellants,
and
VEAMAREA COBLE,
Plaintiff,
versus
THE CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
CAROLINAS HEALTH SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED,
Defendant.
No. 01-1539
JAMES A. DICKENS,
Appellant,
versus

-- 1 of 5 --

2
VEAMAREA COBLE,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
and
THE CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
CAROLINAS HEATH SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED,
Defendant.
No. 01-1540
VEAMAREA COBLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
THE CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
CAROLINAS HEATH SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED,
Defendant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Carl Horn, III, Chief
Magistrate Judge. (CA-99-236-3-H)

-- 2 of 5 --

3
Submitted: September 21, 2001 Decided: November 6, 2001
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Veamarea Coble, Appellant Pro Se. Romallus O. Murphy, Greensboro,
North Carolina; David M. Dansby, Jr., Greensboro, North Carolina;
James Antone Dickens, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF JAMES A. DICKENS,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellants. David Lee Terry,
Robert Blakeney Meyer, MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P., Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 3 of 5 --

* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate
judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994).
4
PER CURIAM:
Romallus O. Murphy, David M. Dansby, Jr., James A. Dickens,
and Veamarea Coble appeal from the magistrate judge’s order grant-
ing in part Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs in
this employment discrimination action. * We have reviewed the rec-
ord and the magistrate judge’s order and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge.
Coble v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth., No. CA-99-236-3-H
(W.D.N.C. filed Mar. 13, 2001; entered Mar. 15, 2001).
To the extent that Coble seeks to appeal the magistrate
judge’s previous order granting Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment on her complaint, we find that Coble’s notice of appeal as
to that order 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 Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United
States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).
The magistrate judge’s order was entered on the docket on
December 7, 2000; therefore, it was incumbent upon Coble to file

-- 4 of 5 --

5
her notice of appeal within thirty days of the court’s order, i.e,
January 8, 2001. Coble did not file her notice of appeal until
April 12, 2001. We therefore dismiss her appeal as to that order
for lack of jurisdiction.
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

-- 5 of 5 --