Court Opinion

ID: 1004767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:46:03.542197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:14.885363
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 00-2548

L. A. GRIER,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

FIRST MARINER BANK,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CA-00-3135-JFM)

Submitted:     June 21, 2001                 Decided:   June 27, 2001

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lorenzo Grier, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Omar Lawson, LAWSON & KIPP,
Fairfax, Virginia; John Sears Simcox, Karen Montgomery Crabtree,
SIMCOX & BARCLAY, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Lorenzo Grier seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his discrimination suit. We dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction, because Grier’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 Corr., 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 Novem-

ber 2, 2000.     Grier’s notice of appeal was filed on December 7,

2000.    Because Grier 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