Opinion

Cole v. Teamsters Local 391

  • 359 F. App'x 377
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Dec 30, 2009
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Wilkinson, Shedd, Agee
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 28.7%

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1507

RAY A. COLE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 391; DONNY BROWN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David

Schroeder, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00499-TDS-WWD)

Submitted: November 16, 2009 Decided: December 30, 2009

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ray A. Cole, Appellant Pro Se. J. David James, SMITH, JAMES,

ROWLETT & COHEN, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ray A. Cole seeks to appeal the district court’s order

adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing his civil action against Teamsters Local 391 and

Donny Brown. 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. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S.

205, 214 (2007); see United States v. Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 685

(4th Cir. 2009) (discussing Bowles and the appeal periods under

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket

on March 30, 2009. Accordingly, in order for Cole’s appeal to

be timely, it must have been filed by April 29, 2009. Cole did

not file a notice of appeal until April 30, 2009. Because Cole

failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an

extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to

proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

2

adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.