Green v. Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7751
GEORGIA GREEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WARDEN; MEDICAL STAFF OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY
DETENTION CENTER; DOCTOR JANI; DOCTOR RIVERA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
02-1742-PJM)
Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2003
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Georgia Green, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Georgia Green seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Green’s 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, 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 was entered on the docket on May
30, 2002. Green’s notice of appeal was filed no earlier than
November 6, 2002.* Because Green 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
*
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3