Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Harley v. Doctor Beioh, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Thomas Harley's appeal of the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss Harley's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court dismissed the appeal because Harley failed to file a timely notice of appeal within the 30-day period required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A). Specifically, the district court entered its order on February 26, 2008, but Harley did not file his notice of appeal until February 3, 2009, over a year later. As Harley did not obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, the court lacked jurisdiction over the untimely appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-06-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-6234

    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 Thomas Harley's appeal of the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss Harley's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court dismissed the appeal because Harley failed to file a timely notice of appeal within the 30-day period required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A). Specifically, the district court entered its order on February 26, 2008, but Harley did not file his notice of appeal until February 3, 2009, over a year later. As Harley did not obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, the court lacked jurisdiction over the untimely appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Harley v. Doctor Beioh, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Thomas Harley's appeal of the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss Harley's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court dismissed the appeal because Harley failed to file a timely notice of appeal within the 30-day period required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A). Specifically, the district court entered its order on February 26, 2008, but Harley did not file his notice of appeal until February 3, 2009, over a year later. As Harley did not obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, the court lacked jurisdiction over the untimely 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. 09-6234

    THOMAS HARLEY,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    DOCTOR BEIOH, Doctor at Kershaw Correctional Institution;
    NURSE GARDNER, Nurse at Kershaw Correctional Institution;
    LIEUTENANT ROBINSON, Lieutenant at Kershaw Correctional
    Institution; BRCI PRISON OFFICIALS; JON OZMINT, Director of
    South Carolina Department of Corrections,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
    (3:06-cv-01792-RBH)

    Submitted:

    May 21, 2009

    Decided:

    June 1, 2009

    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Thomas Harley, Appellant Pro Se. James M. Davis, Jr., Joel Steve
    Hughes, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Thomas
    order

    Harley

    adopting

    the

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    magistrate

    the

    judges

    district

    courts

    recommendation

    dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.

    and

    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).
    is mandatory and jurisdictional.
    Corr.,

    434

    U.S.

    257,

    264

    (1978)

    This appeal period

    Browder v. Dir., Dept of


    (quoting

    United

    States

    v.

    Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).


    The district courts order was entered on the docket
    on

    February

    26,

    2008.

    February 3, 2009. *

    The

    notice

    of

    appeal

    was

    filed

    on

    Because Harley failed to file a timely notice

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


    period,

    we

    deny

    his

    dismiss the appeal.

    motion

    for

    preliminary

    injunction

    and

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date


    appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
    have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to
    the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266,
    270 (1988).

    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like