Filed: Jan. 11, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6144 ANTONIO RENALDO JACKSON-BEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 03-1790-8-PJM) Submitted: November 24, 2004 Decided: January 11, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio Renaldo
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6144 ANTONIO RENALDO JACKSON-BEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 03-1790-8-PJM) Submitted: November 24, 2004 Decided: January 11, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio Renaldo ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6144
ANTONIO RENALDO JACKSON-BEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
03-1790-8-PJM)
Submitted: November 24, 2004 Decided: January 11, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antonio Renaldo Jackson-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Melton
Andrews, KRAMON & GRAHAM, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Renaldo Jackson-Bey, a Maryland prisoner, seeks
to appeal from the district court’s order denying his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2000) complaint. Because Jackson-Bey’s notice of appeal
was filed outside the thirty-day appeal period set forth in Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), and the district court concluded on remand that
Jackson-Bey failed to demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause
for the late filing, we lack jurisdiction over Jackson-Bey’s
appeal. See Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections,
434 U.S.
257, 264 (1978) (stating the appeal periods established by Rule 4
are mandatory and jurisdictional). Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal as untimely. 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 -