Case ID: f-appx_60/html/0999-01.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

Mohamad Mohafuzul KARIM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STAPLES, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 02-1959.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 27, 2003.
    Decided April 28, 2003.
    Mohamad Mohafuzul Karim, Appellant pro se. Abbey Gail Hairston, Charles Frederick Walters, Seyfarth Shaw, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
    Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Mohamad Mohafuzul Karim seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to reopen discovery and granting summary judgment in favor of Staples on his hostile work environment claim. 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. 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 Com., 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 23, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed on August 23, 2002. Thus, Karim’s notice of appeal was filed one day out of time. Because Karim 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.