Filed: Aug. 02, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1159 HENRY T. SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus IN RE: _ PETITIONER THE HONORABLE DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, Defendant - Appellee. No. 96-1573 HENRY T. SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus IN RE: _ PETITIONER THE HONORABLE DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 95-3886-PJM) Submitted: June
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1159 HENRY T. SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus IN RE: _ PETITIONER THE HONORABLE DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, Defendant - Appellee. No. 96-1573 HENRY T. SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus IN RE: _ PETITIONER THE HONORABLE DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 95-3886-PJM) Submitted: June 2..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1159
HENRY T. SANDERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
IN RE: ______ PETITIONER THE HONORABLE DEBORAH
K. CHASANOW,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 96-1573
HENRY T. SANDERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
IN RE: ______ PETITIONER THE HONORABLE DEBORAH
K. CHASANOW,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
95-3886-PJM)
Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: August 2, 1996
Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
No. 96-1159 affirmed and No. 96-1573 dismissed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Henry T. Sanders, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
In No. 96-1159, Appellant appeals from the district court's
order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court in No. 96-1159. Sanders v. Chasanow, No. CA-95-3886-
PJM (D. Md. Jan. 17, 1996).
Appellant also appeals from the district court's order denying
a plethora of motions filed after the dismissal of his § 1983
action. 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 order was
entered on February 23, 1996. Appellant's notice of appeal was
filed on April 11, 1996. Appellant's failure to note a timely ap-
peal or obtain an extension for the appeal period deprives this
court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore dismiss
the appeal in No. 96-1573.
We deny all of Appellant's outstanding motions, including his
motions for writ of mandamus, to stay, for bail pending appeal, for
expedited treatment, for sanctions, for default judgment, and to
dismiss. We further deny Appellant's motions for transfer, correc-
3
tion or modification of the record, for declaratory or injunctive
relief, for conference, to treat his affidavit as a brief, to
remand, for injunction, for hearing in banc, for prehearing confer-
ence. We also deny his motions to amend, for assignment, for judi-
cial notice, for restoration of the argument calendar, for an order
of contempt, for a show cause order, for special sessions, for an
answer, and for affirmation of relief. Because these appeals have
been consolidated, we deny Appellant's motion to consolidate as
moot. 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.
No. 96-1159 - AFFIRMED
No. 96-1573 - DISMISSED
4