Filed: Oct. 14, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1682 CHESTER MCELVEEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Child Support Enforcement Division, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-3027) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 14, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unp
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1682 CHESTER MCELVEEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Child Support Enforcement Division, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-3027) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 14, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-1682
CHESTER MCELVEEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
Child Support Enforcement Division,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Chief District
Judge. (CA-97-3027)
Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 14, 1998
Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Chester McElveen, Appellant Pro Se. Kathy Gettys Woods, SOUTH CARO-
LINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Chester McElveen 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 jurisdiction-
al.” 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 February 27, 1998;
McElveen’s notice of appeal was filed on May 4, 1998. McElveen’s
failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the ap-
peal 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
2