Opinion

Brown v. Prince Georges County Police Department

  • 416 F. App'x 246
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Mar 10, 2011
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Shedd
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 10.3%

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7771

JEROME JULIUS BROWN, SR.,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; ROBERTO HYLTON,

Chief of Police; CORPORAL C. WOOD,

Respondents – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge.

(1:10-cv-02845-BEL)

Submitted: February 4, 2011 Decided: March 10, 2011

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jerome Julius Brown, Sr. seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his civil complaint. 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). “[T]he timely

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket

on October 25, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on November

30, 2010. * 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

*

For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could

have been properly deposited in the institution’s internal mail

system for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston

v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

2

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.