Filed: Jun. 27, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6166 DEBORAH LEE WHEELER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOEL JACKSON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:06-cv-00674) Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 27, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Deborah Lee Wheeler, Appellant Pro Se.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6166 DEBORAH LEE WHEELER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOEL JACKSON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:06-cv-00674) Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 27, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Deborah Lee Wheeler, Appellant Pro Se. U..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6166
DEBORAH LEE WHEELER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOEL JACKSON,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (7:06-cv-00674)
Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 27, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Deborah Lee Wheeler, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Deborah Lee Wheeler seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing her action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000),
for failure to state a claim. 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
November 16, 2006. The notice of appeal was filed on January 30,
2007. Because Wheeler 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 -