Hodge v. Giant Food Inc. , 81 F. App'x 765 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-1402
    CHANT’E N. HODGE; HAROLD HODGE,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    versus
    GIANT FOOD INCORPORATED; GIANT CALIFORNIA
    MARYLAND STORE; DICK BAIRD; ROSE CALYG, of
    California   Store;  GREG  HILLIARD;   MIKE
    KUBISIAH,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-
    03-106)
    Submitted:   August 6, 2003             Decided:    November 20, 2003
    Before WIDENER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Chant’e N. Hodge, Harold Hodge, Appellants Pro Se. Connie Nora
    Bertram, Patricia A. Exposito, VENABLE, BAETJER, HOWARD &
    CIVILETTI, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellants, Chant’e N. Hodge and Harold Hodge, appeal the
    district court’s order dismissing their civil action.                   Appellants
    failed to file a notice of appeal within the prescribed thirty-day
    period following final entry of the district court’s order.                     See
    Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).          Although the district court’s order
    was entered on February 26, 2003, the Appellants did not file a
    notice   of   appeal   until   March   31,    2003,     three    days    past   the
    expiration of the appeal period.           Moreover, the Appellants did not
    file for an extension of time of the appeal period under Federal
    Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) or to reopen the appeal period
    under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6).               Because timely
    filing of a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional, see
    Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 
    434 U.S. 257
    , 264 (1973), we
    lack jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss
    the appeal on this ground.      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: 03-1402

Citation Numbers: 81 F. App'x 765

Judges: Widener, Shedd, Hamilton

Filed Date: 11/20/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024