Stewart v. YLI Corporation , 50 F. App'x 147 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2134
WANDA M. STEWART,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
YLI CORPORATION; PHILLIP STAFFING,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CA-00-3531-0-23BC)
Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 13, 2002
Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wanda M. Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Beverly A. Carroll, KENNEDY,
COVINGTON, LOBDELL & HICKMAN, L.L.P., Rock Hill, South Carolina;
Andreas Neal Satterfield, Jr., HAYNSWORTH, BALDWIN, JOHNSON &
GREAVES, L.L.C., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Wanda M. Stewart seeks to appeal the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to the Defendants in her employment
discrimination action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction because Stewart’s notice of appeal 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, 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 August
20, 2002. Stewart’s notice of appeal was filed on September 23,
2002. Because Stewart failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
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