Filed: Jan. 23, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2571 WAYNE D. SAXTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SECRETARY OF THE NAVY; JOHN H. DALTON; DEPART- MENT OF THE NAVY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 93-3778-PJM) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam o
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2571 WAYNE D. SAXTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SECRETARY OF THE NAVY; JOHN H. DALTON; DEPART- MENT OF THE NAVY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 93-3778-PJM) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam op..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2571
WAYNE D. SAXTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY; JOHN H. DALTON; DEPART-
MENT OF THE NAVY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
93-3778-PJM)
Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1996
Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wayne D. Saxton, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Joseph Peters, Sr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant noted this appeal outside the sixty-day appeal
period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an
extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day
period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to
relief under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time periods established
by Fed. R. App. P. 4 are "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 entered its order on May 2, 1995; Appellant's notice of
appeal was filed on July 6, 1995. Appellant's failure to note a
timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives
this court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore dis-
miss 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