Filed: Jan. 19, 2005
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7053 VENTURA GARCIA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHNNIE SHUFFORD, ex-officer at McDowell County Jail, Defendant - Appellee. No. 04-7805 VENTURA GARCIA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHNNIE SHUFFORD, ex-officer at McDowell County Jail, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-275) Submitted
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7053 VENTURA GARCIA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHNNIE SHUFFORD, ex-officer at McDowell County Jail, Defendant - Appellee. No. 04-7805 VENTURA GARCIA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHNNIE SHUFFORD, ex-officer at McDowell County Jail, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-275) Submitted:..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7053
VENTURA GARCIA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOHNNIE SHUFFORD, ex-officer at McDowell
County Jail,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 04-7805
VENTURA GARCIA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOHNNIE SHUFFORD, ex-officer at McDowell
County Jail,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-02-275)
Submitted: December 15, 2004 Decided: January 19, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
No. 04-7053, dismissed; No. 04-7805, affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Ventura Garcia, Appellant Pro Se. Mason Gardner Alexander, Jr.,
Amy Shannon Sumerell, FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Ventura Garcia seeks to appeal the district court’s order
entering judgment in his favor in his action filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). (Appeal No. 04-7053). Because Garcia’s
notice of appeal was received in the district court after the
expiration of the appeal period, we remanded the case to the
district court for a determination of the timeliness of the filing
under Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1)* and Houston v. Lack,
487 U.S. 266
(1988) (notice considered filed as of the date Appellant delivers
it to prison officials for forwarding to the court).
On remand, the district court issued an order finding
that Garcia’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. In appeal No.
04-7805, Garcia seeks to appeal from this order. An appellate
court cannot disregard a district court’s factual findings absent
clear error. We find no clear error in the district court’s
determination that Garcia’s notice of appeal was not filed within
the appeal period, and therefore affirm this ruling. See United
States v. United States Gypsum Co.,
333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)
(providing standard).
We dismiss appeal No. 04-7053 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
*
Rule 4(c)(1) states that a prisoner’s notice of appeal is
timely if it is deposited in the institution’s internal mail system
on or before the last day for filing.
- 3 -
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
April 27, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed on June 12, 2004.
Because Garcia failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss
this appeal as untimely. 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.
No. 04-7053, DISMISSED;
No. 04-7805, AFFIRMED
- 4 -