Young v. O'Malley , 285 F. App'x 78 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                 UNPUBLISHED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    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-6683

Citation Numbers: 285 F. App'x 78

Judges: Motz, Per Curiam, Shedd, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 7/28/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023