Dickson v. Maryland National Park Planning Commission ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1027
AUBREY LEON DICKSON, SR.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MARYLAND NATIONAL PARK PLANNING COMMISSION,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Robert W. Titus, District Judge.
(8:09-cv-01429-RWT)
Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 24, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aubrey Leon Dickson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Jared Michael
McCarthy, MARYLAND NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK & PLANNING COMMISSION,
Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Aubrey Leon Dickson, Sr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders granting the Defendant’s motions to dismiss, or
in the alternative, for summary judgment and denying Dickson’s
second motion to amend or alter 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)).
The district court’s orders were entered on the docket
on October 13, 2009 and November 25, 2009. The notice of appeal
was filed on December 31, 2009. Because Dickson 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.
DISMISSED
2