Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
CASON v. MARYLAND, 263 Fed.Appx. 380 (4th Cir. 2008)
Marc S. CASON, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Md. Div. OF PAROLEAND Prob., Defendant-Appellee., 263 F. App'x 380 (4th Cir. 2008)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2008-02-08
- Topic
- general
CASON v. MARYLAND, 263 Fed.Appx. 380 (4th Cir. 2008) Marc S. CASON, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND DIVISION OF PAROLEAND PROBATION, Defendant-Appellee. No. 06-7220.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: January 18, 2008.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed CASON v. MARYLAND, 263 Fed.Appx. 380 (4th Cir. 2008). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
CASON v. MARYLAND,263 Fed.Appx. 380(4th Cir. 2008)
Marc S. CASON, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND DIVISION OF PAROLE
AND PROBATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-7220.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 18, 2008.
Decided: February 8, 2008.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:06-cv-01186-CCB).
Marc S. Cason, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Marc S. Cason, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his42 U.S.C. § 1983(2000) complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. We dismiss the appeal as untimely.
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). A district court may extend the time to appeal upon motion filed within thirty days after expiration of the prescribed time, and a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Fed.R.App.P.4(a)(5). This appeal period is "mandatory and jurisdictional."Browder v. Dir., Dep't of Corr.,434 U.S. 257,264,98 S.Ct. 556,54 L.Ed.2d 521(1978) (quotingUnitedStates v. Robinson,361 U.S. 220,229,80 S.Ct. 282,4 L.Ed.2d 259(I960)).
The district court's order was entered on its docket on May 17, 2006. Cason filed his notice of appeal on July 11, 2006, which was after the thirty-day appeal period expired but within the thirty-day excusable neglect period. On limited remand, the district court found that Cason failed to establish good cause or excusable neglect to justify filing the untimely notice, and thus denied his motion for an extension of the appeal period.
Because Cason's notice of appeal was untimely filed, 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.
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). A district court may extend the time to appeal upon motion filed within thirty days after expiration of the prescribed time, and a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Fed.R.App.P.4(a)(5). This appeal period is "mandatory and jurisdictional."Browder v. Dir., Dep't of Corr.,434 U.S. 257,264,98 S.Ct. 556,54 L.Ed.2d 521(1978) (quotingUnitedStates v. Robinson,361 U.S. 220,229,80 S.Ct. 282,4 L.Ed.2d 259(I960)).
The district court's order was entered on its docket on May 17, 2006. Cason filed his notice of appeal on July 11, 2006, which was after the thirty-day appeal period expired but within the thirty-day excusable neglect period. On limited remand, the district court found that Cason failed to establish good cause or excusable neglect to justify filing the untimely notice, and thus denied his motion for an extension of the appeal period.
Because Cason's notice of appeal was untimely filed, 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.
- [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩