Bowler v. Young

77 F. App'x 182

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Bowler seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motions to reinstate four previously dismissed actions filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdic tion because the notices of appeal were 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, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s orders denying reinstatement were entered on the docket on June 11, 2003. The notices of appeal were postmarked July 14, 2003, and filed on July 15, 2003. See Fed.R.App. P. 4(c). Because Bowler failed to file timely notices of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeals. We deny Bowler’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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.