Filed: Feb. 29, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8540 LEE MARVIN WEBB, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID L. SMITH, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-876-R) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 29, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lee Marvin Web
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8540 LEE MARVIN WEBB, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID L. SMITH, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-876-R) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 29, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lee Marvin Webb..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-8540
LEE MARVIN WEBB,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DAVID L. SMITH,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.
(CA-95-876-R)
Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 29, 1996
Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lee Marvin Webb, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 period
established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an exten-
sion 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. Direc-
tor, Dep't of Corrections,
434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United
States v. Robinson,
361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).
The district court dismissed Appellant's action by order
entered August 22, 1995. On October 10, 1995, Appellant filed some
papers which the district court construed as a motion for reconsid-
eration. The district court denied the motion for reconsideration
on October 27, 1995. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on Decem-
ber 13, 1995. Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain
an extension of the appeal period deprives this court of jurisdic-
tion 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
2