Court Opinion

ID: 603083
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-08-23 10:23:55+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:11.615630
License: Public Domain

989 F.2d 492
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.James L. GANTT;  Ronald Gantt, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.John E. MUDD;  T. Rogers Harrison;  Richard C. Burch;  Mudd,Harrison and Burch;  Raymond V. Dipaulo;  Gloria H. DiPaulo;Maurice T. Xenos;  James H. Diggs;  James P. Dorsey;  S.Bates;  L. Schaffer;  Detective Martin;  Baltimore CountyPolice Department, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 92-2577.
United States Court of Appeals,Fourth Circuit.
Submitted:  March 1, 1993Decided:  March 19, 1993

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.  Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge.  (CA-92-2869-S)
James L. Gantt, Ronald Gantt, Appellants Pro Se.
D.Md.
DISMISSED.
Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

OPINION

1
James L. and Ronald Gantt noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal period established by Fed.  R. App.  P. 4(a)(1), and failed to move for an extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day period provided by Fed.  R. App.  P. 4(a)(5).  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)).  Appellants' 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 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