Court Opinion

ID: 174141
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-08-26 19:57:14+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:25:29.101664
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 10-1277

HENRY T. SANDERS,

                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          v.

STATE OF MARYLAND; TREASURER OF MARYLAND,

                Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.     Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:09-cv-03173-PJM)

Submitted:   August 19, 2010                 Decided:   August 26, 2010

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry T. Sanders, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           Henry T. Sanders seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his complaint.           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).                 “[T]he timely

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional

requirement.”     Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

           The district court’s order was entered on the docket

on January 27, 2010.       The notice of appeal was filed on March 8,

2010.    Because Sanders failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we

dismiss the appeal.        We deny Sanders’ motion for relief.              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

                                      2