Dawn Figman v. Sprint

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1287
DAWN FIGMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SPRINT,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District
Judge. (CA-01-3)
Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 20, 2003
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dawn Figman, Appellant Pro Se. Neal Lawrence Walters,
Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Dawn Figman seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying her motions for transcript at government expense, and to
disqualify a district court judge. We dismiss the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the
district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 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 orders were entered on the docket on
January 22, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on February 24,
2003. Because Figman failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss
the appeal. We deny Figman’s motion for transcripts at government
expense and deny Sprint’s motion to quash 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 of 2 --