Filed: Jan. 31, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2989 BONITA DOROTHY SACILOTTO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BALTIMORE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Precinct II; SERGEANT MENTZER; JAMES JOHNSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-2416-JFM) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: January 31, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Se
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2989 BONITA DOROTHY SACILOTTO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BALTIMORE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Precinct II; SERGEANT MENTZER; JAMES JOHNSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-2416-JFM) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: January 31, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Sen..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2989
BONITA DOROTHY SACILOTTO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BALTIMORE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Precinct
II; SERGEANT MENTZER; JAMES JOHNSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CA-94-2416-JFM)
Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: January 31, 1996
Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bonita Dorothy Sacilotto, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Allan Fry,
Assistant Solicitor, Towson, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 thirty-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 June 27, 1995; Appellant's notice of ap-
peal was filed on November 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. Accordingly, we
grant Appellees' motion and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2