Ray Edward Wells, a/k/a Ray Anthony Wells v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 1988 . - 2 - PER CURIAM: Ray Edward Wells seeks to appeal the…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6698
RAY EDWARD WELLS, a/k/a Ray Anthony Wells,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LARRY W. POWERS; MEDICAL STAFF,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CA-04-178-8-CMC)
Submitted: October 18, 2005 Decided: October 20, 2005
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ray Edward Wells, Appellant Pro Se. James Howarth Ritchie, Jr.,
Scott F. Talley, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the
court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Ray Edward Wells seeks to appeal the district court’s
order granting summary judgment to defendants. 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 February 23, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on May 5,
2005.* Because Wells failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal. We deny Wells’ motions to expedite and for
appointment of counsel, and dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --