Notice: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(C) States that Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Except for Establishing Res Judicata, Estoppel, or the Law of the Case and Requires Service of Copies of Cited Unpublished Dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Bernard Harry Grant-Bey, Petitioner--Appellant, v. William L. Smith; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Respondents--Appellees., 95 F.3d 41 (4th Cir. 1996)
Federal Circuits, Fourth Circuit (August 21, 1996)
Docket number: 96-6778
Permanent Link:
http://vlex.com/vid/18203220
Id. vLex: VLEX-18203220
Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)
Document language
Search in this document
Document options
U.S. Supreme Court - Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988)
U.S. Supreme Court - Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill., 434 U.S. 257 (1978)
U.S. Supreme Court - United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220 (1960)
RSSU.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - Bancoklahoma Mortgage Corp. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Capital Title Company, Inc.; Investors Title Company; Old Republic Title Company of St. Louis; U.S. Title Guaranty Company, Inc.; Peter M. Shaw; and U.S. Title Guaranty Company of St. Charles, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, Joseph A. Iadevito; Theresa M. Janson; Lenders Mortgage Services, Inc.; Professional Builders Closing Service, Inc., Defendants., 194 F.3d 1089 (10th Cir. 1999) v. Capital Title Company, Inc.; Investors Title Company; Old Republic Title Company of St. Louis; U.S. Title Guaranty Company, Inc.; Peter M. Shaw; and U.S. Title Guaranty Company of St. Charles, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, Joseph A. Iadevito; Theresa M. Janson; Lenders Mortgage Services, Inc.; Professional Builders Closing Service, Inc., Defendants.
Bernard Harry Grant-Bey, appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., Tarra R. DeShields-Minnis, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, for appellees.
Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.PER CURIAM:Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal 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." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1). 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).Appellant's failure to file a timely notice of appeal* or to 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 deny a certificate of appealability and 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 * For the purposes of this appeal we assume that the date Appellant wrote on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it would have been submitted to prison authorities. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). This date was May 3, 1996, and the appeal period expired on May 1, 1996Try vLex for FREE for 3 days
Access legal information from United States including:
- Constitutions
- Forms and Contracts
- Legal Books and Journals
- Case Law
- News and Business
- Regulations
- U.S. Code
Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.
3
days of Free Access
