Opinion
23-1727
02-01-2024
OLIVER RICARDO COLEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee.
Oliver R. Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Edmund J. O'Meally, PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: January 11, 2024
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (8:21-cv-00068-DLB)
Oliver R. Coleman, Appellant Pro Se.
Edmund J. O'Meally, PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Oliver Ricardo Coleman appeals the district court's order granting the Board of Education of Prince George's County's ("Board") motion to dismiss his complaint alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12132, 12133; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); and the Individuals with Disabilities Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 to 1482. The Board has moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely. In a civil case, parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court's final judgment to note an appeal. See Fed. R. App. 4(a)(1)(A). A judgment is entered for purposes of Rule 4(a) when it is entered in the civil docket and set forth on a separate document, or 150 days have run from entry of the judgment in the civil docket. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 58(a). Here, the district court's order was entered on the civil docket on June 2, 2023, but it was not accompanied by a separate document. Therefore, Coleman had 150 days to note an appeal. Coleman's notice of appeal, filed on July 10, 2023, was not untimely.
Turning to the merits of the appeal, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the Board's motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely and affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED