Cooper v. Pinkerton Security
Opinion
Carl Benit Cooper seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing without prejudice his civil rights complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Appellant’s 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, see Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1), 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 Corrections, 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 order was entered on the docket on March 4, 2003. Cooper’s notice of appeal was filed on May 27, 2003. * Because Cooper failed to file a *658 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.
We assume for the purpose of this appeal that Cooper's notice of appeal was filed on May 27, 2003, the date it was signed by Cooper. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(c), Houston v. Lack, 487 *658 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Carl Benit COOPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PINKERTON SECURITY; Andrew John Savage, III, Esquire; Edwardo Kelvin Curry, Esquire, Defendants-Appellees
- Status
- Unpublished