Filed: Sep. 07, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7079 JOSHUA BERNARD JOHNS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT A. BARNETT, Security Officer; A. DAVID ROBINSON, Warden; WILLIAM P. ROGERS, Regional Director; ELIZA S. WILLIS, Treatment Program Supervisor; MAJOR DOUG VAUGHAN, Chief of Security; EDWARD L. DAVIS, Institutional Investigator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Bri
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7079 JOSHUA BERNARD JOHNS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT A. BARNETT, Security Officer; A. DAVID ROBINSON, Warden; WILLIAM P. ROGERS, Regional Director; ELIZA S. WILLIS, Treatment Program Supervisor; MAJOR DOUG VAUGHAN, Chief of Security; EDWARD L. DAVIS, Institutional Investigator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brin..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7079
JOSHUA BERNARD JOHNS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SERGEANT A. BARNETT, Security Officer; A.
DAVID ROBINSON, Warden; WILLIAM P. ROGERS,
Regional Director; ELIZA S. WILLIS, Treatment
Program Supervisor; MAJOR DOUG VAUGHAN, Chief
of Security; EDWARD L. DAVIS, Institutional
Investigator,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-04-228)
Submitted: August 18, 2004 Decided: September 7, 2004
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua Bernard Johns, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Joshua Bernard Johns seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action without
prejudice for failure to exhaust state administrative remedies. 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. Director, 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 19, 2004. Johns’ notice of appeal was dated June 21, 2004, and
filed on June 22, 2004. Under any calculation, then, the notice of
appeal was untimely. Because Johns failed to file a timely notice
of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period, we dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
- 2 -