Court Opinion

ID: 1001710
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:59:44.726124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:57.021706
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 00-1472

WILLIAM LEE RICHARDSON, JR.,

                                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

STATE OF MARYLAND,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-
00-427-S)

Submitted:   May 25, 2000                   Decided:   June 2, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Lee Richardson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     William Lee Richardson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his civil complaint.     We dismiss the ap-

peal for lack of jurisdiction because Richardson’s notice of appeal

was not timely filed.

     Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district

court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App.

P. 4(a)(1), 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. 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’s order was entered on the docket on

February 23, 2000.      Richardson’s notice of appeal was filed on

April 10, 2000.    Because Richardson 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

                                  2