Dwayne Evans v. the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1215
DWAYNE EVANS; AMANDA EVANS; DWAYNE BRYAN
EVANS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION;
ARTHUR GRIFFIN, JR., individually and as
chairperson; WILHELMENIA REMBERT, DR.; JOHN W.
LASSITER; LARRY GAUVREAU; VILMA D. LEAKE, DR.;
GEORGE R. DUNLAP; LOUISE S. WOODS; MOLLY
GRIFFIN; LEE KINDBERG, DR., individually and
as board members; JAMES L. PUGHSLEY, DR.,
individually and as superintendent; LOUIS H.
LAYNE, DR., individually and as regional
superintendent; HOMER TOWNSEND, individually
and as principal; A. B. CRANK, individually
and as assistant principal; ASHLY KIMBER,
individually and as teacher; CYNTHIA JOHNSON,
individually and as police officer; H.
ETIENUE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-355)
Submitted: June 9, 2005 Decided: June 14, 2005
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dwayne Evans, Amanda Evans, Dwayne Bryan Evans, Appellants Pro Se.
James G. Middlebrooks, Mark Weston Johnson, HELMS MULLISS & WICKER,
PPLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Appellants seek to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing
their civil rights complaint. 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. Director, 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 judgment was entered on the docket
on January 20, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on February
23, 2005. Because Appellants 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

-- 3 of 3 --