Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Davidson v. Taylor, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Cheryl Davidson's appeal in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights case. The district court had granted summary judgment to the defendants. The appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Davidson failed to file her notice of appeal within the mandatory 30-day period after the district court entered judgment, nor did she obtain an extension.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-12-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-2051

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Cheryl Davidson's appeal in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights case. The district court had granted summary judgment to the defendants. The appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Davidson failed to file her notice of appeal within the mandatory 30-day period after the district court entered judgment, nor did she obtain an extension.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    11 views3 pages

    Davidson v. Taylor, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Cheryl Davidson's appeal in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights case. The district court had granted summary judgment to the defendants. The appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Davidson failed to file her notice of appeal within the mandatory 30-day period after the district court entered judgment, nor did she obtain an extension.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-2051

    CHERYL A. DAVIDSON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JAMES TAYLOR; JOHN O'DONALD; DARRELL BETSILL,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    CITY
    OF
    GAFFNEY;
    ENFORCEMENT DIVISION,

    SOUTH

    CAROLINA

    LAW
    Defendants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-04-928-7-HMH)

    Submitted: December 15, 2005

    Decided: December 20, 2005

    Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Cheryl A. Davidson, Appellant Pro Se. Vance J. Bettis, GIGNILLIAT,


    SAVITZ & BETTIS, Columbia, South Carolina; Michael Stephen Pauley,
    VINTON D. LIDE & ASSOCIATES, Lexington, South Carolina, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    Cheryl A. Davidson seeks to appeal the district courts
    order granting summary judgment to Defendants in her 42 U.S.C.

    1983

    (2000)

    action.

    We

    dismiss

    the

    appeal

    for

    lack

    of

    jurisdiction because the 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, Fed. R.
    App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 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).

    This appeal period is mandatory

    and jurisdictional. Browder v. Director, Dept of Corr., 434 U.S.


    257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,
    229 (1960)).
    The district courts judgment was entered on the docket
    on

    August

    10,

    2005.

    September 16, 2005.

    The

    notice

    of

    appeal

    was

    filed

    on

    Because Davidson failed to file a timely

    notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the


    appeal period, we grant the Defendants motions to 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

    - 3 -

    You might also like