Wilson v. Corcoran ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 96-6405
    GREGORY M. WILSON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; MARSHA MALOFF, Ad-
    ministrator; DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL
    SYSTEMS, c/o Central Laundry Facility; DOCTOR
    PORTUONDO; MARGARET EURY, Nurse,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. M.J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-95-956-
    MJG)
    Submitted:   June 20, 1996                  Decided:   July 2, 1996
    Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Gregory M. Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
    Attorney General, Richard M. Kastendieck, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
    GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Philip Melton Andrews,
    KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal
    period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an
    extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day
    period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to
    relief under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time periods established
    by Fed. R. App. P. 4 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)). The district
    court entered its order on January 4, 1996; Appellant's notice of
    appeal was filed on March 14, 1996. Appellant's failure to note a
    timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives
    this court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore
    grant Appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal. We dispense with
    oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
    ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 96-6405

Filed Date: 7/2/1996

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021