Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • John Ferguson v. Giant Foods, Inc., 914 F.2d 1490, 4th Cir. (1990)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    28 views2 pages
    John Ferguson appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Giant Foods in a wrongful termination case. However, Ferguson filed the notice of appeal and motion for extension of time to appeal outside of the time limits prescribed by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. As such, the district court did not have jurisdiction to grant the extension, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to hear the untimely appeal. The Fourth Circuit grants the appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1990-10-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 914 F.2d 1490 Docket: 90-3075

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    John Ferguson appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Giant Foods in a wrongful termination case. However, Ferguson filed the notice of appeal and motion for extension of time to appeal outside of the time limits prescribed by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. As such, the district court did not have jurisdiction to grant the extension, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to hear the untimely appeal. The Fourth Circuit grants the appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    John Ferguson v. Giant Foods, Inc., 914 F.2d 1490, 4th Cir. (1990)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    John Ferguson appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Giant Foods in a wrongful termination case. However, Ferguson filed the notice of appeal and motion for extension of time to appeal outside of the time limits prescribed by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. As such, the district court did not have jurisdiction to grant the extension, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to hear the untimely appeal. The Fourth Circuit grants the appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    914 F.

    2d 1490
    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.
    John FERGUSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    GIANT FOODS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 90-3075.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted Aug. 27, 1990.
    Decided Sept. 25, 1990.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 26, 1990.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
    at Baltimore. Norman P. Ramsey, District Judge. (C/A No. 89-3308-R).
    John Ferguson, appellant pro se.
    Edward Ross Levin, Gerald William Heller, Washington, Perito & Dubuc,
    Washington, D.C., for appellee.
    D.Md.
    DISMISSED.
    Before SPROUSE and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    John Ferguson brought this action in state court challenging his termination
    from employment with Giant Foods, Inc. (Giant). Giant removed the case to the
    district court and moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the

    motion for summary judgment on April 10, 1990. Ferguson noted an appeal on
    May 14, 1990, beyond the 30-day appeal period set forth in Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)
    (1). Ferguson moved for an extension of time to appeal on June 13, 1990, two
    days beyond the excusable neglect period prescribed by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5).
    The district court granted the motion in a marginal order.
    2

    Because the notice of appeal was late and the motion for extension of time was
    not filed within the period prescribed by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5), the district court
    was without jurisdiction to grant the extension. Hensley v. Chesapeake & Ohio
    Ry. Co., 651 F.2d 226 (4th Cir.1981); United States v. Avendano-Camacho,
    786 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Cheek, 761 F.2d 461 (8th
    Cir.1985); United States v. Hoye, 548 F.2d 1271 (6th Cir.1977). Therefore, the
    appeal was untimely and this court does not have jurisdiction to consider it.
    Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978). We grant
    the appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely.

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not
    significantly aid in the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like