Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    Marvin Hill, A/K/A Melvin Taylor, A/K/A Marvin Grant v. Thomas Ward, 887 F.2d 1079, 4th Cir. (1989)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court case summary that: 1) Notes that the appellant filed an appeal outside of the 30-day period required by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and did not request an extension. 2) States that the time periods for filing an appeal are mandatory and jurisdictional, and since the appellant did not file in time or request an extension, the court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case. 3) Indicates that the court is dismissing the appeal and dispensing with oral arguments.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Marvin Hill, A/K/A Melvin Taylor, A/K/A Marvin Grant v. Thomas Ward, 887 F.2d 1079, 4th Cir. (1989)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document is a court case summary that: 1) Notes that the appellant filed an appeal outside of the 30-day period required by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and did not request an extension. 2) States that the time periods for filing an appeal are mandatory and jurisdictional, and since the appellant did not file in time or request an extension, the court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case. 3) Indicates that the court is dismissing the appeal and dispensing with oral arguments.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1989-09-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 887 F.2d 1079 Docket: 89-7156

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court case summary that: 1) Notes that the appellant filed an appeal outside of the 30-day period required by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and did not request an extension. 2) States that the time periods for filing an appeal are mandatory and jurisdictional, and since the appellant did not file in time or request an extension, the court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case. 3) Indicates that the court is dismissing the appeal and dispensing with oral arguments.

    Copyright:

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

    Marvin Hill, A/K/A Melvin Taylor, A/K/A Marvin Grant v. Thomas Ward, 887 F.2d 1079, 4th Cir. (1989)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court case summary that: 1) Notes that the appellant filed an appeal outside of the 30-day period required by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and did not request an extension. 2) States that the time periods for filing an appeal are mandatory and jurisdictional, and since the appellant did not file in time or request an extension, the court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case. 3) Indicates that the court is dismissing the appeal and dispensing with oral arguments.

    Copyright:

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

    887 F.

    2d 1079
    Unpublished Disposition

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    Marvin HILL, a/k/a Melvin Taylor, a/k/a Marvin Grant,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    v.
    Thomas WARD, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 89-7156.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted: June 15, 1989.
    Decided: Sept. 28, 1989.

    Marvin Hill, appellant pro se.


    John Joseph Curran, Jr., Beverly Peyton Griffith (Office of the Attorney
    General), for appellee.
    Before DONALD RUSSELL, CHAPMAN and WILKINSON, Circuit
    Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Marvin Hill noted this appeal outside the 30-day appeal period established by
    Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1), and failed to move for an extension of the appeal period
    within the additional 30-day period provided by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5). The time
    periods established by Fed.R.App.P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional."
    Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting
    United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Appellant's failure to
    note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives this
    Court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore deny a certificate of
    probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

    argument because the dispositive issues recently have been decided


    authoritatively.
    2

    DISMISSED.

    You might also like