Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Woods v. Chao, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views3 pages
    Daniel Woods appealed a district court order granting summary judgment to the defendant in Woods' employment discrimination lawsuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Woods' notice of appeal was filed one day late. The notice of appeal was due within 60 days when the government is a party, but Woods filed on the 61st day. As such, the court did not have authority to consider the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-04-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-2384

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Daniel Woods appealed a district court order granting summary judgment to the defendant in Woods' employment discrimination lawsuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Woods' notice of appeal was filed one day late. The notice of appeal was due within 60 days when the government is a party, but Woods filed on the 61st day. As such, the court did not have authority to consider the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Woods v. Chao, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Daniel Woods appealed a district court order granting summary judgment to the defendant in Woods' employment discrimination lawsuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Woods' notice of appeal was filed one day late. The notice of appeal was due within 60 days when the government is a party, but Woods filed on the 61st day. As such, the court did not have authority to consider the appeal.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 04-2384

    DANIEL WOODS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    ELAINE L. CHAO, Secretary, Department of
    Labor,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,
    District Judge. (CA-03-7-2)

    Submitted:

    April 14, 2005

    Decided:

    April 19, 2005

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Daniel Woods, Appellant Pro Se.


    Kasey Warner, United States
    Attorney, Kelly Rixner Curry, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Daniel Woods seeks to appeal the district courts order
    adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    granting summary judgment to the Defendant in his civil action
    under Title VII, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Age Discrimination
    in Employment Act.

    We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction

    because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.


    When the United States or its officer or agency is a
    party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days
    after the entry of the district courts final judgment or order,
    Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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).
    mandatory and jurisdictional.

    This appeal period is

    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 order was entered on the docket on
    August 27, 2004.
    2004.

    The notice of appeal was filed on October 27,

    Accordingly, the appeal was filed one day late.

    Because

    Woods failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an


    extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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

    - 2 -

    DISMISSED

    - 3 -

    You might also like