Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Miller v. Department of Corr, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views4 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Frankie X. Miller against Lester Thompson for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had entered its order on July 21, 1995, but Miller filed his notice of appeal over a year later on October 30, 1996, well past the 30-day deadline. As Miller did not obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, the Fourth Circuit found it did not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal and dismissed the case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-03-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-7707

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Frankie X. Miller against Lester Thompson for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had entered its order on July 21, 1995, but Miller filed his notice of appeal over a year later on October 30, 1996, well past the 30-day deadline. As Miller did not obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, the Fourth Circuit found it did not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal and dismissed the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    5 views4 pages

    Miller v. Department of Corr, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Frankie X. Miller against Lester Thompson for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had entered its order on July 21, 1995, but Miller filed his notice of appeal over a year later on October 30, 1996, well past the 30-day deadline. As Miller did not obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, the Fourth Circuit found it did not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal and dismissed the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 96-7707

    FRANKIE X. MILLER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    LESTER THOMPSON, Doctor,
    Defendant - Appellee,
    and
    DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
    Defendants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-94-479-2)
    Submitted:

    March 13, 1997

    Decided:

    March 19, 1997

    Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Frankie X. Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant 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." 1 Parties to civil actions have thirty days within
    which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders.2 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 July 21, 1995; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on October 30, 1996. Appellant's
    failure to note a timely appeal or obtain either an extension or a
    reopening of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We therefore
    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

    Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264


    (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229
    (1960)).
    2

    FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1).


    3

    You might also like