Case Name: Michael L. PACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Martin O'MALLEY, Mayor, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-28
Citations: 260 F. App'x 545
Docket Number: No. 07-1868
Parties: Michael L. PACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Martin O’MALLEY, Mayor, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 260
Pages: 545–546

Head Matter:
Michael L. PACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Martin O’MALLEY, Mayor, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 07-1868.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 14, 2007.
Decided: Dec. 28, 2007.
Michael L. Pack, Appellant Pro Se. James R. Benjamin, Jr., Baltimore City Law Department, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael L. Pack seeks to appeal the district court's order and correspondence informing him the Appellee filed a motion to dismiss and granting the motion to dismiss. 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 (1960)).
The district court's order was entered on the docket on February 16, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on August 30, 2007. Because Pack 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.