Richard Greene, Jr v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 1978 quoting United States v. Robinson, 361…

03-1747Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 20, 2003

Full text

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1747
RICHARD GREENE, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
THE STATE OF MARYLAND; DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
LICENSING AND REGULATION; BARRY COOPER; NELSON
FITZGERALD,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-
02-2336-JFM)
Submitted: August 14, 2003 Decided: August 20, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Greene, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Julie Ellen Squire, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Richard Greene, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion to alter or amend its judgment denying relief on
his employment discrimination action. 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. Dir., 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 May 6,
2003. The notice of appeal was filed on June 6, 2003. Because
Greene 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 materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.