# Cole v. Teamsters Local 391

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · December 30, 2009 · 359 F. App'x 377

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1031121

## Case

- **Full name:** Ray A. COLE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. TEAMSTERS LOCAL 391; Donny Brown, Defendants—Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 30, 2009
- **Citations:** 359 F. App'x 377
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkinson, Shedd, Agee
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1031121

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1031121. Public record. Not legal advice.