The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6537
JEROME JULIUS BROWN, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
E. KING SMITH, U.S. Postal Inspector; ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.
(CA-97-1703-1)
Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 18, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jerome Julius Brown, Sr. seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(d) (1994), presently codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
(2000). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the
notice of appeal was not timely filed.
When the United States or its officer or agency is a
party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days
after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order,
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 order was entered on the docket on
May 30, 1997. The notice of appeal was filed on March 8, 2004.
Because Brown 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 -