Hall v. DiNisio

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6301 JEROME L. HALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LAWRENCE DINISIO, Warden, Defendant - Appellee, and TALBOT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-1114-JFM) Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: June 29, 2001 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome L. Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Karp, ALLEN, JOHNSON, ALEXANDER & KARP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jerome L. Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Appellant’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 granting summary judgment was entered on the docket on December 12, 2000, and Hall’s motion to amend his affidavit, which the district court construed as a motion for reconsideration, was denied on January 5, 2001. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on February 20, 2001. Because Appellant 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