Case ID: f-appx_50/html/0143-02.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

Khang MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BMW MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 02-1942.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.
    Decided Nov. 13, 2002.
    Khang Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Robert M. Sneed, George Andrew Harper, Jackson, Lewis, Sehnitzler & Krupman, Green-ville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Khang Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his civil action alleging employment discrimination. 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. RApp. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 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 July 16, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed on August 16, 2002. Because Martin failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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.