Restoney Robinson v. James B. McMillan Clarence W. Burr, H.B. Griggs, Sgt., Aaron Johnson, S.E. Callahal, Sgt.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Case No. 90-6338
docket://gov.uscourts.ca4.90-6338 (What is this?)

Tags No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
Judges don't know as much about themselves as we do.
Access comprehensive profiles on judges, firms, lawyers, and more with PlainSite Pro and Pro Se.
  Text Citations (2) Cited By (26) Right End

911 F.2d 724
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Restoney ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
James B. McMILLAN, Clarence W. Burr, H.B. Griggs, Sgt.,
Aaron Johnson, S.E. Callahal, Sgt., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-6338.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 9, 1990.
Decided July 20, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Chief District Judge. (C/A No. 89-350-P)

Restoney Robinson, appellant pro se.



Before SPROUSE and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.



Restoney Robinson noted this appeal outside the 30-day appeal period established by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1), and failed to move for an extension of the appeal period within the additional 30-day period provided by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5). The time periods established by Fed.R.App.P. 4 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)). Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives this Court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore 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.




This case has been viewed 74 times.

No comments have been added yet. Sign in to post a comment.
Issues Laws Cases Pro Pro Se Articles Firms Entities
Issues Laws Cases Pro Pro Se Articles Firms Entities
Need Password Help?