UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1856
MICHAEL L. PACK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JAMES R. BENJAMIN, JR.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 07-1890
MICHAEL L. PACK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MARSDEN, BOTARIS & SELEDEE,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 07-1928
MICHAEL L. PACK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BANK OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz; Catherine C. Blake,
District Judges. (1:07-cv-00715-JFM; 1:07-cv-02057-CCB; 1:07-cv-
02058-JFM)
Submitted: October 24, 2007 Decided: November 26, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael L. Pack, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Michael L. Pack appeals
district court orders summarily dismissing his complaints. In No.
07-1856, Pack has filed an untimely notice of appeal and we dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In Nos. 07-1890 and 07-1928,
we dismiss the appeals as frivolous.
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)).
In No. 07-1856, the district court’s order was entered on
the docket on March 28, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on
August 30, 2007. Because Pack failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,
we dismiss the appeal.
In Nos. 07-1890 and 07-1928, the district court dismissed
without prejudice Pack’s complaints for failing to state a claim.
We agree with the reasoning of the district court and dismiss the
appeals as frivolous. See Pack v. Marsden, Botaris & Seledee, No.
- 3 -
1:07-cv-02057-CCB (D. Md. Sept. 6, 2007); Pack v. Bank of America,
No. 1:07-cv-02058-JFM (D. Md. Sept. 11, 2007).
Accordingly, we dismiss No. 07-1856 for lack of
jurisdiction and dismiss as frivolous Nos. 07-1890 and 07-1928. We
warn Pack that if he continues to abuse the judicial system by
filing frivolous appeals, we will consider enjoining Pack from
filing any other appeals without first getting leave from the
district court that the appeal is not frivolous. 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
- 4 -