Harley v. International Business MacHines Corp. , 11 F. App'x 309 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 01-1390
    ISAIAH HARLEY, JR.,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    and
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff,
    versus
    INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-
    99-2725-CCB)
    Submitted:   May 31, 2001                   Decided:   June 8, 2001
    Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Isaiah Harley, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Isaiah Harley seeks to appeal an order of the district court
    purportedly entered on March 12, 2001.   The district court docket
    sheet reflects that there was no order entered by the court on or
    around that date.      To the extent Harley seeks to appeal the
    district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint without prej-
    udice for lack of jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal as untimely
    filed.
    Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district
    court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 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 jurisdic-
    tional.”   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 Sep-
    tember 15, 1999.   Harley’s notice of appeal was filed on March 15,
    2001.    Because Harley failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
    to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dis-
    miss 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-1390

Citation Numbers: 11 F. App'x 309

Judges: King, Per Curiam, Traxler, Wilkins

Filed Date: 6/8/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023