# Brown v. Smith

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · August 18, 2004 · 104 F. App'x 356

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1014137

## Case

- **Full name:** Jerome Julius BROWN, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, and Monique Mayes BROWN, Plaintiff, v. M.M. Dove, Attorney General, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 18, 2004
- **Citations:** 104 F. App'x 356
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Niemeyer, Williams, Traxler
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1014137

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1014137. Public record. Not legal advice.