Case ID: f-appx_31/html/0229-01.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

George Sylvester FLOYD, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas E. WHITE, Secretary of the Army; Claude Williams, Adjutant General, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 01-2435.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 14, 2002.
    Decided March 21, 2002.
    George Sylvester Floyd, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Mark David Maxwell, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

George Sylvester Floyd, Sr. seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the Appellees’ motion to dismiss his Title VII action. The Appellees have moved to dismiss Floyd’s appeal as untimely. We grant the Appellees’ motion and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Floyd’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded sixty days after the 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 September 27, 2001. Floyd’s notice of appeal was filed on November 27, 2001. Because Floyd failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant the 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.