Daniel Willis v. North Carolina Clean Water Man, No. 08-1321 (4th Cir. 2008)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1321 DANIEL JOHNSON WILLIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA INCORPORATED, CLEAN WATER MANAGEMENT TRUST FUND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:07-mc-00010) Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 24, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel Johnson Willis, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daniel Johnson Willis seeks to appeal the district court s order denying him leave to file a new pleading and denying all outstanding motions. 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). and jurisdictional. This appeal period is mandatory 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 December 18, 2007. 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on February 19, Because Willis failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.