Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 0 views

    Gilford v. Glendening, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Isaac Gilford's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Parties have 30 days to file a notice of appeal, but Gilford's notice was filed on April 10, 2000, more than 30 days after the district court's March 3, 2000 order. As such, the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction over the untimely appeal and dismissed the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Gilford v. Glendening, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Isaac Gilford's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Parties have 30 days to file a notice of appeal, but Gilford's notice was filed on April 10, 2000, more than 30 days after the district court's March 3, 2000 order. As such, the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction over the untimely appeal and dismissed the case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-09-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-6535

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Isaac Gilford's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Parties have 30 days to file a notice of appeal, but Gilford's notice was filed on April 10, 2000, more than 30 days after the district court's March 3, 2000 order. As such, the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction over the untimely appeal and dismissed the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    0 views2 pages

    Gilford v. Glendening, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Isaac Gilford's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Parties have 30 days to file a notice of appeal, but Gilford's notice was filed on April 10, 2000, more than 30 days after the district court's March 3, 2000 order. As such, the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction over the untimely appeal and dismissed the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 00-6535

    ISAAC GILFORD,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    PARRIS GLENDENING; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
    STATE OF MARYLAND; LLOYD L. WATERS, Warden,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA00-574-S)

    Submitted:

    September 21, 2000

    Decided:

    September 28, 2000

    Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Isaac Gilford, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Isaac Gilford seeks to appeal the district courts order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 2000) action.

    We dis-

    miss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Appellants notice


    of appeal was not timely filed.
    Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the
    district courts final judgment or order to note an appeal, see
    Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), 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).
    datory and jurisdictional.

    This appeal period is man-

    Browder v. Director, Dept of Correc-

    tions, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson,
    361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).
    The district courts order was entered on the docket on March
    3, 2000.

    Gilfords notice of appeal was filed on April 10, 2000.*

    Because Gilford 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

    For the purpose of this appeal we assume that the date


    stamped on the envelope used to mail the notice of appeal is the
    date it was given to prison officials for mailing. See Fed. R.
    App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
    2

    You might also like