Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • Richardson v. Norduland, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Загружено:

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 просмотров2 страницы
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Lenir Richardson's appeal of a district court order. The district court had dismissed Richardson's complaint as frivolous. The Court of Appeals found it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because Richardson's notice of appeal was filed one day late, outside the mandatory 30-day period to file an appeal. As Richardson did not obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, the Court was required to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Исходное описание:

    Filed: 2005-04-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-1209

    Авторское право

    © Public Domain

    Доступные форматы

    PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Lenir Richardson's appeal of a district court order. The district court had dismissed Richardson's complaint as frivolous. The Court of Appeals found it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because Richardson's notice of appeal was filed one day late, outside the mandatory 30-day period to file an appeal. As Richardson did not obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, the Court was required to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Авторское право:

    Public Domain
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    8 просмотров2 страницы

    Richardson v. Norduland, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Загружено:

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Lenir Richardson's appeal of a district court order. The district court had dismissed Richardson's complaint as frivolous. The Court of Appeals found it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because Richardson's notice of appeal was filed one day late, outside the mandatory 30-day period to file an appeal. As Richardson did not obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, the Court was required to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Авторское право:

    Public Domain
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-1209

    LENIR RICHARDSON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    LORRAINE NORDULAND, Honorable; JANE M. ROUSH,
    Honorable,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
    Judge. (CA-04-1543-1)

    Submitted:

    April 14, 2005

    Decided:

    April 20, 2005

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Lenir Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Michael Hall, OFFICE


    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Lenir Richardson seeks to appeal the district courts
    order dismissing her complaint as frivolous. We dismiss the appeal
    for lack of jurisdiction because Appellants 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, see
    Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), 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).

    This appeal period is

    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)).
    The district courts order was entered on the docket on
    January 25, 2005.

    Appellants notice of appeal was filed on

    February 25, 2005, or one day beyond the appeal period.

    Because

    Appellant 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.
    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    Вам также может понравиться