Cason v. MD Division of Parole
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MARC S. CASON, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARYLAND DIVISION OF PAROLE AND PROBATION, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:06-cv-01186-CCB)
January 18, 2008
February 8, 2008
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marc S. Cason, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Marc S. Cason, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 42 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. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Fed.
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). jurisdictional." This appeal period is "mandatory and
Browder v. Dir., 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 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. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the are adequately presented in the
- 2 -
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?