Case ID: f-appx_186/html/0400-01.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

Kathryn L. KERSHNER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Gale A. NORTON, Secretary, Department of Interior, Defendant—Appellee.
    No. 06-1178.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 15, 2006.
    Decided: June 19, 2006.
    Kathryn L. Kershner, Appellant Pro Se. Sherri Evans Harris, Office of the United States Attorney, Washington, D.C., Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Office of the United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Kathryn L. Kershner seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her claims of discrimination and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701-796 (1999). 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. Dir., 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 (I960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on May 24, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on January 26, 2006. Because Kershner 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