The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
01-2272•Marcia A. Trumbull v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 1978 quoting United States v.…
01-2272Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 21, 2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-2272
MARCIA A. TRUMBULL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
TOMMY G. THOMPSON, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-01-741-AW)
Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 21, 2002
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcia A. Trumbull, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Marcia A. Trumbull seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing her employment discrimination suit for a failure to
respond to a show cause order regarding her inability to effect
service of process on the Defendants. We dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction because Trumbull’s notice of appeal was not
timely filed.
Parties are accorded sixty days after entry of the district
court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App.
P. 4(a)(1), 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 Corrections, 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 August
15, 2001. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on October 17,
2001. Because Appellant 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 ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.