Legg v. Gee

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7100 WILLIAM ALLEN LEGG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ARCHIE C. GEE, Warden; ASSISTANT WARDEN SPANGLER; PATUXENT STAFF; DEPARTMENT OF COR- RECTIONS; EMSA STAFF; MARYLAND HEALTH AND HYGIENE DEPARTMENT OF MARYLAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 98-975-DKC) Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 6, 1999 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Allen Legg, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Allen Legg filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dis- miss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “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)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The district court entered its order on April 15, 1998; Legg’s notice of appeal was filed on July 23, 1998, which is beyond the thirty-day period. Legg’s failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves this court without juris- diction to consider the merits of his appeal. We therefore 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