Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Miller v. Richardson, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Gary Lewis Miller's appeal for lack of jurisdiction because his notice of appeal was untimely. The district court had entered its order on March 26, 1998 but Miller did not file his notice of appeal until August 10, 1998, well beyond the 30-day deadline. As the notice of appeal was filed outside the mandatory and jurisdictional time period allowed by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Miller did not obtain an extension, the appeals court had no choice but to dismiss the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-11-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-7257

    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 Gary Lewis Miller's appeal for lack of jurisdiction because his notice of appeal was untimely. The district court had entered its order on March 26, 1998 but Miller did not file his notice of appeal until August 10, 1998, well beyond the 30-day deadline. As the notice of appeal was filed outside the mandatory and jurisdictional time period allowed by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Miller did not obtain an extension, the appeals court had no choice but to dismiss the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Miller v. Richardson, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Gary Lewis Miller's appeal for lack of jurisdiction because his notice of appeal was untimely. The district court had entered its order on March 26, 1998 but Miller did not file his notice of appeal until August 10, 1998, well beyond the 30-day deadline. As the notice of appeal was filed outside the mandatory and jurisdictional time period allowed by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Miller did not obtain an extension, the appeals court had no choice but to dismiss the appeal.

    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. 98-7257

    GARY LEWIS MILLER,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    OFFICER
    RICHARDSON;
    SERGEANT
    POYTHRESS;
    MARGARET JAMES, Officer; OFFICER PLEASENT,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-28-5-BR)

    Submitted:

    November 5, 1998

    Decided:

    November 23, 1998

    Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Gary Lewis Miller, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Gary Lewis Miller filed an untimely notice of appeal. We
    dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing
    notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods
    are mandatory and jurisdictional. Browder v. Director, Dept of
    Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.
    Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have
    thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of
    appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The
    only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court
    extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens
    the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).
    The district court entered its order on March 26, 1998;
    Appellants notice of appeal was filed on August 10, 1998, which is
    beyond the thirty-day appeal period. Appellants failure to note a
    timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves
    this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellants appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We deny Appellants
    motion objecting to the terms of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
    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

    You might also like