Case ID: f-appx_21/html/0163-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ronald KLINK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sampy HARDIN, Jr.; Kathy Lee Hardin, Personal Representatives for the Estate of Sampy Hardin, Sr., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 01-1778.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 18, 2001.
    Decided Oct. 25, 2001.
    Ronald Klink, pro se.
    Michael James Florio, Florio Law Offices, Clarksburg, WV, for appellees.
    Before DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Ronald Klink seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his suit filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because Klink’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1), 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). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on May 7, 2001. Klink’s notice of appeal was filed on June 7, 2001. Because Klink failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.