Chase v. Henneberry ( 1998 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6802
WARREN CHASE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOSEPH HENNEBERRY, The Director of the Patux-
ent Institution; ARCHIE GEE, The Warden of the
Patuxent Institution; ROBERT SANGLER, Assis-
tant Warden; MR. LEVEAN (RMT) Doctor; MS.
ROSEN (RMT); MR. NERO, Doctor; MS. SOULER,
Doctor; MR. KIM (RMT) Doctor,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-
97-3031-CCB)
Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 4, 1998
Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Warren Chase, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney
General, Wendy Ann Kronmiller, Assistant Attorney General, Balti-
more, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss 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 judg-
ments 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 March 31, 1998;
Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on May 20, 1998,* which is
beyond the thirty-day appeal period. Appellant’s failure to note a
timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves
this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appel-
lant’s appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
*
We presume for the purpose of this appeal that Appellant
deposited the notice of appeal in the prison’s internal mail system
on the date he prepared it. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266(1988).
3
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
4