Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    This document summarizes two appeals by Kent Galand regarding a declaratory judgment action against the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles. In case number 92-2120, the appeal was dismissed because Galand filed the notice of appeal outside the mandatory 30-day period. In case number 93-1046, the district court's denial of Galand's motion for an extension of time to appeal was affirmed, as the record did not reveal any abuse of discretion. Both appeals were dismissed without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1993-03-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 989 F.2d 492 Docket: 93-1046

    Original Title

    Kent Galand v. M. W. Dufford, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Kent Galand v. M. W. Dufford, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, 989 F.2d 492, 4th Cir. (1993)

    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 summarizes two appeals by Kent Galand regarding a declaratory judgment action against the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles. In case number 92-2120, the appeal was dismissed because Galand filed the notice of appeal outside the mandatory 30-day period. In case number 93-1046, the district court's denial of Galand's motion for an extension of time to appeal was affirmed, as the record did not reveal any abuse of discretion. Both appeals were dismissed without oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes two appeals by Kent Galand regarding a declaratory judgment action against the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles. In case number 92-2120, the appeal was dismissed because Galand filed the notice of appeal outside the mandatory 30-day period. In case number 93-1046, the district court's denial of Galand's motion for an extension of time to appeal was affirmed, as the record did not reveal any abuse of discretion. Both appeals were dismissed without oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    989 F.

    2d 492

    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.
    Kent GALAND, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    M. W. DUFFORD, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Kent GALAND, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    M. W. DUFFORD, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Nos. 92-2120, 93-1046.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 1, 1993
    Decided: March 22, 1993

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South
    Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-911216-3-17AH)
    Kent Galand, Appellant Pro Se.
    William Lane Todd, South Carolina Department of Highways & Public
    Transportation, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    D.S.C.
    DISMISSED IN NO. 92-2120 AND AFFIRMED IN NO. 93-1046.
    Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    In No. 92-2120, Kent Galand seeks to appeal the district court's final judgment
    dismissing his declaratory judgment action. However, he filed his notice of
    appeal outside the thirty-day appeal period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)
    (1). 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 to obtain an extension of the
    appeal period deprives this Court of jurisdiction to consider that case.
    Therefore, we dismiss the appeal in No. 92-2120.

    In No. 93-1046, Galand appeals from the district court's order denying his
    motion for an extension of time in which to appeal, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P.
    4(a)(5). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion fails to
    disclose an abuse of discretion. Therefore, we affirm in No. 93-1046.

    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.
    No. 92-2120-DISMISSED No. 93-1046-AFFIRMED

    You might also like