Lindsey
v.
Rice

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia CircuitApr 28, 2008
No. 08-7005. (D.C. Cir. Apr. 28, 2008)

No. 08-7005.

April 28, 2008.

BEFORE: Sentelle, Chief Judge, and Rogers and Tatel, Circuit Judges.


ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion to dismiss appeal as untimely, the Clerk's order to show cause filed February 8, 2008, the response thereto, and the reply, it is

ORDERED that the motion to dismiss be granted. The notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days after entry of the challenged order, as required under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1)(A), and appellant is not entitled to the benefit of the "mailbox rule" because he is not a prisoner. See Fed.R.App.P. 25(a)(2)(A). The notice of appeal was signed by appellant on January 14, 2008, but not received by the Clerk until January 16, 2008. And, while the district court may reopen the appeal period under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(6), appellant failed to file with that court a conforming motion. See Kidd v. District of Columbia, 206 F.3d 35, 37-38 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (relief under Rule 4(a)(6) requires the filing of a motion). This court may not otherwise extend the appeal period. Fed.R.App.P. 26(b)(2).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.