Salathiel Franklin Quesenberry, Jr v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 1978 quoting United States v.…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7702
SALATHIEL FRANKLIN QUESENBERRY, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
H. L. KIRKPATRICK, III, Judge; KRISTEN KELLER
BURNSIDE; JAMES BARE; STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA;
RALEIGH COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden II, Chief
District Judge. (CA-01-207-5)
Submitted: April 18, 2002 Decided: April 25, 2002
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Salathiel Franklin Quesenberry, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Salathiel Franklin Quesenberry seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the
magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 complaint.
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because
Quesenberry’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after 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 May
16, 2001. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on September 27,
2001. Because Appellant failed to file a timely notice of appeal
or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal. We also deny Quesenberry’s motion for
appointment of counsel, his motion for a hearing, and his motion
objecting to the filing fee. We 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 --