Charlie Richardson v. Charles Williams, No. 08-1067 (4th Cir. 2008)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1067 CHARLIE LEE RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHARLES J. WILLIAMS, Human Resource Director of Cabarrus County Schools, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin J. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:05-cv-00211-MR-DCK) Submitted: June 19, 2008 Decided: June 23, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charlie L. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Lee Rainey, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charlie L. Richardson seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his post-judgment motions following the denial of relief on his civil complaint. 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 November 9, 2007. 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on December 11, Because Richardson 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.