Case Name: Nicholas Warner JONES, a/k/a Charles Mark Jones, a/k/a Jeffrey Victor Warner, all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Maxine ELDRIDGE; Stuart O. Simms; William W. Sondervan; State of Maryland; Chief Judge of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City; Administrative Judge of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-10-30
Citations: 21 F. App'x 202
Docket Number: No. 01-7417
Parties: Nicholas Warner JONES, a/k/a Charles Mark Jones, a/k/a Jeffrey Victor Warner, all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Maxine ELDRIDGE; Stuart O. Simms; William W. Sondervan; State of Maryland; Chief Judge of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City; Administrative Judge of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 21
Pages: 202–203

Head Matter:
Nicholas Warner JONES, a/k/a Charles Mark Jones, a/k/a Jeffrey Victor Warner, all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Maxine ELDRIDGE; Stuart O. Simms; William W. Sondervan; State of Maryland; Chief Judge of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City; Administrative Judge of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-7417.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 18, 2001.
Decided Oct. 30, 2001.
Nicholas Warner Jones, pro se.
Before DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Nicholas Warner Jones appeals the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of a previous order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint, or in the alternative, a motion for writ of mandamus. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jones v. Eldridge, No. CA-01-1793-L (D. Md. filed Aug. 1, 2001; entered Aug. 3, 2001). 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.
AFFIRMED.
In his informal brief, Jones states that he seeks to appeal the underlying order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 complaint. Although Jones' informal brief could be construed as a notice of appeal, Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248, 112 S.Ct. 678, 116 L.Ed.2d 678 (1992), the brief was filed well beyond the applicable thirty-day appeal period. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1). Thus, we do not have jurisdiction to review the underlying judgment.