Richardson v. State of Maryland

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1472 WILLIAM LEE RICHARDSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendant -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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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