Ronnie Sylvia v. Tommy Maddox, No. 09-6786 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6786 RONNIE SYLVIA, Plaintiff Appellant, v. TOMMY MADDOX; TONI BANKS; D. WEAVER; N. AUSTIN, Defendants Appellees, and KEITH WHITENER, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (5:05-cv-00013-GCM) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 21, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Michael Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant. James Philip Allen, Assistant Attorney General, Joseph Edward Elder, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronnie dismissing orders Sylvia his seeks 42 to U.S.C. appeal the ยง (2006) 1983 denying his motion for reconsideration. district court s complaint and 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). is mandatory and jurisdictional. Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) This appeal period Browder v. Dir., Dep t of (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court s orders were entered on the docket on August 7, 2007, and August 28, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed no sooner than April 9, 2009. Because Sylvia failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny his motion for appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral contentions argument because the facts and legal are adequately presented in the materials before the court and oral argument would not 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.