UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6630
LEVONE JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM W. SONDERVAN, Commissioner of
Corrections; RONALD HUTCHINSON, MHC Warden;
PRISON HEALTH SERVICES; THE UNIVERSITY OF
MARYLAND HOSPITAL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
00-3595-PJM)
Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 19, 2002
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Levone Jones, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney
General, Sharon Stanley Street, Assistant Attorney General,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Levone Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order that
granted summary judgment to William Sondervan and Ronald
Hutchinson, and dismissed all claims against Prison Health Services
and the University of Maryland Hospital. We dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction because Jones’ notice of appeal was not timely
filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after the 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 April
24, 2001. Jones’ notice of appeal was filed on April 16, 2002.
Because Jones failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain
an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the
appeal. We deny Jones’ motion for appointment of counsel and a
medical expert witness. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3