Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
No. 98-6963
WARREN CHASE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JACKY HENDRICKS, Classification Counselor;
RICHARD WARREN; MR. ADAMS; DR. CATCHER; DR.
ANAWAILLEY; MR. CRAIG; MR. PATTERSON; BOB
CRAFT; R. BOND; DR. SHAPIRO; M. MUNGAI; DR.
MEILLER; JOSEPH HENNEBERRY; ARCHIE GEE; ROBERT
SPANGLER; THOMAS R. CORCORAN; SMITH, Assistant
Warden; MRS. SORENSON; JOHN SWIVEL; MS.
FAUNTLEROY; SWENDOLIN DUCKETT; MR. THEADWELL;
RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR.; EUGENE M. NUTH; JACK
KAVANAGH; JOSEPH ZBOZIEN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA97-2966-CCB)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal
are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are mandatory and
jurisdictional. Browder v. Director, Dept of Corrections, 434
U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.
220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within
which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions
to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time
to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal
period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).
The district court entered its order disposing of the complaint on March 31, 1998.
ing construed by the court as a motion for reconsideration.* Because it was filed more than ten days after the March 31 order, the
motion did not toll the thirty-day appeal period in which to file
a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). The district court
denied the motion on May 18, 1998; Appellants notice of appeal was
filed on June 25, 1998, which is beyond the thirty-day appeal
period as to both the March 31 order and the May 18 order. Appel-
We
deposited
prisons
prepared.
DISMISSED