Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ronald Lamar Mitchell v. Thomas R. Israel W. Colvin R. Wallace, 838 F.2d 467, 4th Cir. (1988)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished appellate court decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court dismissed an appeal filed by Ronald Lamar Mitchell for lack of jurisdiction because Mitchell noted the appeal outside of the 30-day period established by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and failed to file a motion to extend the appeal period within an additional 30 days as allowed. As the time periods for filing an appeal are mandatory and jurisdictional, the court was required to dismiss the appeal. The court dispensed with oral argument as the dispositive issues had been recently decided by authoritative precedent.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1988-01-14 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 838 F.2d 467 Docket: 87-7710

    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    This document is an unpublished appellate court decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court dismissed an appeal filed by Ronald Lamar Mitchell for lack of jurisdiction because Mitchell noted the appeal outside of the 30-day period established by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and failed to file a motion to extend the appeal period within an additional 30 days as allowed. As the time periods for filing an appeal are mandatory and jurisdictional, the court was required to dismiss the appeal. The court dispensed with oral argument as the dispositive issues had been recently decided by authoritative precedent.

    Copyright:

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

    Ronald Lamar Mitchell v. Thomas R. Israel W. Colvin R. Wallace, 838 F.2d 467, 4th Cir. (1988)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished appellate court decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court dismissed an appeal filed by Ronald Lamar Mitchell for lack of jurisdiction because Mitchell noted the appeal outside of the 30-day period established by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and failed to file a motion to extend the appeal period within an additional 30 days as allowed. As the time periods for filing an appeal are mandatory and jurisdictional, the court was required to dismiss the appeal. The court dispensed with oral argument as the dispositive issues had been recently decided by authoritative precedent.

    Copyright:

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

    838 F.

    2d 467
    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.
    Ronald Lamar MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    Thomas R. ISRAEL; W. Colvin R. Wallace, DefendantsAppellees.
    No. 87-7710.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted: Nov. 23, 1987.
    Decided: Jan. 14, 1988.

    Ronald Lamar Mitchell, pro se.


    Eric Karl Gould Fiske, Office of the Attorney General, for appellees.
    Before DONALD RUSSELL, WIDENER, and WILKINSON, Circuit
    Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Ronald Lamar Mitchell 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. See Shah v.
    Hutto, 722 F.2d 1167 (4th Cir.1983) (en banc), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 975
    (1984). We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument

    because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively.


    2

    DISMISSED.

    You might also like