Case ID: f-appx_37/html/0672-01.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

Levone JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William W. SONDERVAN, Commissioner of Corrections; Ronald Hutchinson, MHC Warden; Prison Health Services; The University of Maryland Hospital, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 02-6630.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 13, 2002.
    Decided June 19, 2002.
    Levone Jones, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Sharon Stanley Street, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Levone Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order that granted summary judgment to William Sondervan and Ronald Hutchinson, and dismissed all claims against Prison Health Services and the University of Maryland Hospital. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Jones’ 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, 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 April 24, 2001. Jones’ notice of appeal was filed on April 16, 2002. Because Jones failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Jones’ motion for appointment of counsel and a medical expert witness. 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.