Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Parham v. White, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Robert Parham's appeal of the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The district court entered its order on September 29, 2009. Parham did not file his notice of appeal until December 9, 2009, more than 30 days later. As the 30-day deadline for filing an appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to the untimely filing of the notice of appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-03-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 098199

    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 Robert Parham's appeal of the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The district court entered its order on September 29, 2009. Parham did not file his notice of appeal until December 9, 2009, more than 30 days later. As the 30-day deadline for filing an appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to the untimely filing of the notice of appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Parham v. White, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Robert Parham's appeal of the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The district court entered its order on September 29, 2009. Parham did not file his notice of appeal until December 9, 2009, more than 30 days later. As the 30-day deadline for filing an appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to the untimely filing of the notice of appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 09-8199

    ROBERT S. PARHAM, JR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    PETER WHITE; RUBY WILLIAMS; JAMES BAINES; DR. DRAKE; SCOTT
    HUGHES,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (5:09-ct-03022-BO)

    Submitted:

    March 16, 2010

    Decided:

    March 24, 2010

    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Robert S. Parham, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Robert S. Parham, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
    courts
    (2006).

    order

    dismissing

    his

    action

    under

    42

    U.S.C.

    1983

    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

    September

    29,

    December 9, 2009.

    2009.

    The

    notice

    of

    appeal

    was

    filed

    on

    Because Parham 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

    You might also like