UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6683
CLAYTON E. YOUNG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
WILLIAM WRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARTIN O’MALLEY, Governor; SECRETARY OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants - Appellees,
STATE OF MARYLAND,
Debtor - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07-cv-
01613-RWT)
Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 28, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clayton E. Young, Appellant Pro Se. Rex Schultz Gordon, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Clayton E. Young seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying his motions to view and denying a motion to amend,
which the district court construed as a motion for joinder of an
additional plaintiff. We dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
The notice of appeal of the order denying the motions to
view 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
November 8, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on April 18,
2008.* Because Young failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal.
*
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the
court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
- 3 -
We also lack jurisdiction over the district court’s order
denying the motion to amend the complaint. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and
certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292
(2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order denying the motion to amend
is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
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 -