eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2000-02

DeLeon v. Enterprise Leasing ( 2000 )


Menu:
 
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-1995
CAROLYN DELEON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY, a/k/a Enterprise
Rent-A-Car,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
BRAD DANIEL; TERRY SANDERFORD; RICHARD RUSH,
Defendants.
No. 99-2505
CAROLYN DELEON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY, a/k/a Enterprise
Rent-A-Car,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
BRAD DANIEL; TERRY SANDERFORD; RICHARD RUSH,
Defendants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CA-97-972-5-H)
Submitted:   February 10, 2000        Decided:   February 15, 2000
Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
No. 99-1995 dismissed and No. 99-2505 affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Carolyn DeLeon, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Edward Clemmons, YOUNG,
MOORE & HENDERSON, P.A., Raleigh, North Carolina; Patricia M.
McFall, MCMAHON, BERGER, HANNA, LINIHAN, CODY & MCCARTHY,
St. Louis, Missouri, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Carolyn DeLeon seeks to appeal the district court’s orders in
No. 99-1995, granting summary judgment to Enterprise Leasing on her
employment discrimination action; and in No. 99-2505, awarding
court costs to Appellee Enterprise Leasing.   We dismiss the appeal
in No. 99-1995 for lack of jurisdiction because DeLeon’s notice of
appeal was not timely filed and affirm the district court’s order
in No. 99-2505.
Parties are accorded thirty days after 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 in No. 99-1995 was entered on the
docket on April 15, 1999.   Although the district court granted an
extension of the appeal period through June 16, 1999, DeLeon’s
notice of appeal was not filed until July 13, 1999.   Because DeLeon
failed to file a timely notice of appeal, we dismiss the appeal in
No. 99-1995.
We also find that the district court's assessment against
DeLeon of the reasonable cost of the preparation of Enterprise's
3
successful summary judgment motion was not an abuse of the court's
discretion.   See 28 U.S.C. 1920 (1994);
    28 U.S.C. § 1920
     (1994);
Oak Hall Cap and Gown Co. v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.,
    899 F.2d 291
    , 296 (4th Cir. 1990).   Accordingly, we affirm the order in
No. 99-2505 on the reasoning of the district court.   See DeLeon v.
Enterprise Leasing Co., No. CA-97-972-5-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 14, 1999).
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.
No. 99-1995 - DISMISSED
No. 99-2505 - AFFIRMED
4