The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
08-1709•Robert L. Johnson v. Nubian Princess Ent
08-1709Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 21, 2009
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1709
ROBERT L. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NUBIAN PRINCESS ENT,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:07-cv-01625-TLW)
Submitted: January 15, 2009 Decided: January 21, 2009
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert L. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Robert L. Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and
dismissing his civil 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. Dir., 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 order was entered on the docket
on July 31, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed at the
earliest on June 13, 2008. Because Johnson 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.