Court Opinion

ID: 990739
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:25:54.460508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:50.175988
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 96-2120

JOAN A. KING,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          and

ROBERT L. STEPHENSON,

                                                           Plaintiff,

          versus

PERRY N. IVES; PORETSKY MANAGEMENT,

                                             Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-96-1931-AW)

Submitted:   October 17, 1996             Decided:   November 1, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joan A. King, Appellant Pro Se. H. Patrick Donohue, ARMSTRONG,
DONOHUE, & CEPPOS, CHARTERED, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:

     Appellant noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal

period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an

extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day

period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to

relief under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time periods established
by Fed. R. App. P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v.
Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting

United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district

court entered its order on June 26, 1996; Appellant's notice of

appeal was filed on August 2, 1996. Appellant's failure to note a

timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives
this court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore dis-

miss 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

                                3