Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Ellis v. City of Hanahan, 95-7892 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7892 Visitors: 20
Filed: Feb. 08, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7892 ROBERT ELLIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF HANAHAN MUNICIPAL COURT; KEITH W. KORNAHRENS, Judge; D. KEITH BOLUS, City Prosecutor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-1475-6-6AK) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges,
More
                           UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                           No. 95-7892



ROBERT ELLIS,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

         versus

CITY OF HANAHAN MUNICIPAL COURT; KEITH W.
KORNAHRENS, Judge; D. KEITH BOLUS, City
Prosecutor,

                                            Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-95-1475-6-6AK)

Submitted:   January 18, 1996            Decided:   February 8, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Robert Ellis, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Appellant noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal

period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an

extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day

period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to

relief under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). 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)). The district

court entered its order on June 9, 1995; Appellant's notice of ap-

peal was filed on November 2, 1995. 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 dis-

miss 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




                                2

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