Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Raymond Bradley Nottingham, Jr. v. Virgil T. Ford, 88-7835 (1989)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 88-7835 Visitors: 14
Filed: Mar. 01, 1989
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 870 F.2d 655 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Raymond Bradley NOTTINGHAM, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Virgil T. FORD, Defendant-Appellee. No. 88-7835. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Jan. 31, 1989. Decided March 1, 1989. Raym
More

870 F.2d 655
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Raymond Bradley NOTTINGHAM, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Virgil T. FORD, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 88-7835.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 31, 1989.
Decided March 1, 1989.

Raymond Bradley Nottingham, appellant pro se.

Before DONALD RUSSELL and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Raymond Bradley Nottingham, a federal prisoner, submitted his notice of appeal to prison authorities outside the 60-day period established by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1).* It was therefore untimely. See Houston v. Lack, 56 U.S.L.W. 4728 (U.S. June 24, 1988) (No. 87-5428). In addition, he 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).

2

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 dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively.

3

DISMISSED.

*

For the purposes of this appeal, we assume that the date Nottingham placed on the request to proceed in forma pauperis attached to his notice of appeal is the earliest date that he would have submitted it to prison authorities

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer