UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6164
CHARLES JONES, a/k/a Nicholas Warner Jones,
a/k/a Jeffrey Victor Warner,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ARRIE W. DAVIS, Maryland State Appeals Judge,
Court of Special Appeals; WILLIAM W.
SONDERVAN, Commissioner of Corrections; MAYOR
AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND; CHIEF
JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY;
KRAUSER; RAYMOND G. THIEME; MARTIN P. WELCH,
Judge; MURPHY, Chief Judge,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.
(CA-02-1818-BEL; CA-02-1951-BEL)
Submitted: April 29, 2004 Decided: May 5, 2004
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) actions. We dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the 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, Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 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. Dir., 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
June 20, 2002. Giving Jones the benefit of Houston v. Lack, 487
U.S. 266 (1988), his notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest,
on January 9, 2004. 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 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 -