Filed: Aug. 18, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6691 JEROME JULIUS BROWN, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HERBERT LEVENSTEIN, Attorney, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-3650-L) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 18, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Julius
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6691 JEROME JULIUS BROWN, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HERBERT LEVENSTEIN, Attorney, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-3650-L) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 18, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Julius B..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6691
JEROME JULIUS BROWN, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
HERBERT LEVENSTEIN, Attorney,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.
(CA-96-3650-L)
Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 18, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jerome Julius Brown, Sr. seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e). 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. Director, 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 order was entered on the docket on
November 27, 1996. The notice of appeal was filed on March 8,
2004. Because Brown 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 -