Case Name: Richard J. JASMIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NELNET/INTUITION/BGI SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-23
Citations: 367 F. App'x 465
Docket Number: No. 09-1877
Parties: Richard J. JASMIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NELNET/INTUITION/BGI SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 367
Pages: 465–465

Head Matter:
Richard J. JASMIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NELNET/INTUITION/BGI SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 09-1877.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 18, 2010.
Decided: Feb. 23, 2010.
Richard J. Jasmin, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Richard J. Jasmin seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 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. 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 April 17, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on August 4, 2009. Because Jasmin 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.