Filed: Oct. 07, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1902 BRENDA C. ARMSTEAD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD L. HOWLAND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-189-1) Submitted: September 30, 2003 Decided: October 7, 2003 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brenda C. Armstea
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1902 BRENDA C. ARMSTEAD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD L. HOWLAND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-189-1) Submitted: September 30, 2003 Decided: October 7, 2003 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brenda C. Armstead..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1902
BRENDA C. ARMSTEAD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RONALD L. HOWLAND,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (CA-02-189-1)
Submitted: September 30, 2003 Decided: October 7, 2003
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brenda C. Armstead, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Brenda C. Armstead seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing her civil complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
When the United States or its officer or agency is a party,
the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after
the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 March
17, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on July 22, 2003. Because
Armstead failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an
extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny her motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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