Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Norman Wilson Ryman v. Jon P. Galley Lieutenant Tucker Officer Kendricks Linda Cole Officer Hunsberger, 92-6567 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-6567 Visitors: 49
Filed: Aug. 06, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 972 F.2d 341 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Norman Wilson RYMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jon P. GALLEY; Lieutenant Tucker; Officer Kendricks; Linda Cole; Officer Hunsberger, Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-6567. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: July 2
More

972 F.2d 341

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Norman Wilson RYMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Jon P. GALLEY; Lieutenant Tucker; Officer Kendricks;
Linda Cole; Officer Hunsberger, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-6567.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 1992
Decided: August 6, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-92-751-S)

Norman Wilson Ryman, Appellant Pro Se.

Dismissed.

Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Norman Wilson Ryman noted this appeal outside the thirty-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 thirty-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.

DISMISSED

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