Jonathan Keith Idema 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UNPUBLISHED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. 99-1654
JONATHAN KEITH IDEMA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ISHMAEL SHAHEED, Legal guardian and/or parent
of Shareef Shaheed; JACQUELINE N. SHAHEED,
Legal guardian and/or parent of Shareef
Shaheed; SARA GEOGHEGAN, Legal guardian and/or
parent of Shane Gohegan; THOMAS GEOGHEGAN,
Legal guardian and/or parent of Shane Gohegan;
JOHN DOE, I, Legal guardian and/or parent of
"Antonio"; JANE DOE, I, Legal guardian and/or
parent of "Antonio"; JOHN DOE, II, Legal
guardian and/or parent of "Montez"; JANE DOE,
II, Legal guardian and/or parent of "Montez,"
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-96-76-5-BR3)
Submitted: April 13, 2000 Decided: April 19, 2000
Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Jonathan Keith Idema, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Keith Idema seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his suit for lack of diversity jurisdiction. We
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because Idema’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 March
23, 1999. Idema’s notice of appeal was filed on May 6, 1999. Be-
cause 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 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 --