Joe E. Hines v. Northern West Virginia Operations

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1673
JOE E. HINES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA OPERATIONS; CONSOL ENERGY,
INCORPORATED; CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY; LOVERIDGE MINE
#22; BRENT MCCLAIN; PAM COFFMAN; HELEN BLEVINS; LYNN
WAGONER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-00144-FPS)
Submitted: December 8, 2009 Decided: January 5, 2010
Before MICHAEL and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joe E. Hines, Appellant Pro Se. Larry Joseph Rector, STEPTOE &
JOHNSON, LLP, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Joe E. Hines seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders granting summary judgment for some of the Appellees on
his civil rights claims and dismissing his claims against the
remaining Appellee for failure to effect service of process. 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 May 12, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on June 12,
2009, one day out of time. Because Hines failed to file a
timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening
of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --