Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Bennett , 209 F. App'x 242 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1026
CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PATRICK BENNETT,
Defendant & Third Party Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
BENNETT FINANCIAL ASSOCIATES; GWEN K. BENNETT,
Defendants & Third Party Plaintiffs,
versus
JOHN J. SIGNORELLI; DOMINIC GIAMBONA,
Third Party Defendants - Appellees,
and
MIDSTATE RACEWAY, INCORPORATED; COMFORT
ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED,
Third Party Defendants.
No. 06-1372
CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PATRICK BENNETT,
Defendant & Third Party Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
BENNETT FINANCIAL ASSOCIATES; GWEN K. BENNETT,
Defendants & Third Party Plaintiffs,
versus
JOHN J. SIGNORELLI; DOMINIC GIAMBONA,
Third Party Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-
01-1457-DKC; 8:01-cv-01457-DKC)
Submitted: November 15, 2006 Decided: December 14, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
No. 05-1026 affirmed; No. 06-1372 dismissed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
- 2 -
Patrick Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Kerry Shanahan McGeever, Leah
Darring Turner, CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, Silver
Spring, Maryland; Kelly C. Griffith, HARRIS & BEACH, LLP, Syracuse,
New York, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
In appeal No. 05-1026, Patrick Bennett appeals from the
district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of
Choice Hotels International, Inc., on its breach of contract claim,
denying Bennett’s motion to alter or amend the judgment, and
granting summary judgment against Bennett on his third-party claims
for conversion and indemnification. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc. v.
Bennett Financial, No. 8:01-cv-01457-DKC (D. Md. Mar. 18, June 21
& Dec. 6, 2004).
In appeal No. 06-1372, Bennett appeals from the district
court’s order denying his motion to alter or amend the district
court’s December 6, 2004 judgment. We dismiss the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction because the 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, Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 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. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.
257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,
229 (1960)).
- 4 -
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on
February 15, 2006. The notice of appeal was filed on March 24,
2006. Because Bennett 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.
No. 05-1026 AFFIRMED
No. 06-1372 DISMISSED
- 5 -