Thomas N. English 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UNPUBLISHED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. 00-1659
THOMAS N. ENGLISH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
COLUMBUS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, J. R. HUNT,
JR., Individually and in his official capacity
as Superintendent of Columbus Correctional
Institution; CALVIN DUNCAN, Individually and
as an employee of Columbus Correctional Insti-
tution; COLUMBUS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT;
JIMMY P. FERGUSON, Individually and as Sheriff
of Columbus County; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTION,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-99-156-7-BR)
Submitted: September 8, 2000 Decided: September 15, 2000
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Thomas N. English, Appellant Pro Se. Neil Clark Dalton, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina; G.
Christopher Olson, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Thomas N. English seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his civil action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction because English’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 Febru-
ary 11, 2000. English’s notice of appeal was filed on May 10,
2000. Because English failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant
the Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely. We dis-
pense 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 --