Floyd v. White , 31 F. App'x 229 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-2435
GEORGE SYLVESTER FLOYD, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
THOMAS E. WHITE, Secretary of the Army; CLAUDE
WILLIAMS, Adjutant General,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.
(CA-01-362-2)
Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 21, 2002
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George Sylvester Floyd, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Mark David Maxwell,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
George Sylvester Floyd, Sr. seeks to appeal the district
court’s order granting the Appellees’ motion to dismiss his Title
VII action. The Appellees have moved to dismiss Floyd’s appeal as
untimely. We grant the Appellees’ motion and dismiss the appeal
for lack of jurisdiction because Floyd’s notice of appeal was not
timely filed.
Parties are accorded sixty days after the entry of the dis-
trict court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(1), 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. Director, Dep’t of Corrections,
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
September 27, 2001. Floyd’s notice of appeal was filed on November
27, 2001. Because Floyd failed to file a timely notice of appeal
or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
grant the Appellees’ motion to 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