Ray Cole v. Teamsters Local 391, No. 09-1507 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1507 RAY A. COLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TEAMSTERS LOCAL 391; DONNY BROWN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David Schroeder, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00499-TDS-WWD) Submitted: November 16, 2009 Decided: December 30, 2009 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ray A. Cole, Appellant Pro Se. J. David James, SMITH, JAMES, ROWLETT & COHEN, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ray A. Cole seeks to appeal the district court s order adopting dismissing the recommendation his Donny Brown. civil action of the against magistrate Teamsters judge Local 391 and 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. This appeal period Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007); see United States v. Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009) (discussing Bowles and the appeal periods under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)). The district court s order was entered on the docket on March 30, 2009. Accordingly, in order for Cole s appeal to be timely, it must have been filed by April 29, 2009. not file a notice of appeal until April 30, 2009. failed to file a timely notice of appeal or Cole did Because Cole to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 2 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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.
