Scribd
Upload
19 views2 pages

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

The court dismissed James Allen Dowell's appeal because he filed it more than 30 days after the district court's decision, and he did not request an extension of time to file the appeal. The court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal filed outside of the mandatory deadlines of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4. While the district court's order did not contain a separate document setting forth the judgment, the court held that the brief order was sufficient to satisfy Rule 58's separate document requirement and to notify Dowell that the time for filing an appeal had begun.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
19 views2 pages

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

The court dismissed James Allen Dowell's appeal because he filed it more than 30 days after the district court's decision, and he did not request an extension of time to file the appeal. The court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal filed outside of the mandatory deadlines of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4. While the district court's order did not contain a separate document setting forth the judgment, the court held that the brief order was sufficient to satisfy Rule 58's separate document requirement and to notify Dowell that the time for filing an appeal had begun.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

4 F.

3d 984

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unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing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service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth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.
James Allen DOWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
C. V. BLACKBURN, Officer; D. Willey, Officer; Steve
Hollar, Assistant Warden; Dr. Lanyi; T. Stewart,
Adjustment Committee Chairman; Issac Moore, Food Service
Supervisor; B. P. Jenning, Food Service Supervisor;
Staunton Adjustment Committee; Wayne Rankin,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 92-6993.

United States Court of Appeals,


Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 25, 1992.
Decided: September 3, 1993.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of
Virginia, at Roanoke. B. Waugh Crigler, Magistrate Judge. (CA-89-251R)
James Allen Dowell, Appellant Pro Se.
Mark Ralph Davis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond,
Virginia; Edward Meade Macon, McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
W.D.Va.
DISMISSED.
Before WIDENER, HALL, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION
1

James Allen Dowell 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

The Court notes that the magistrate judge did not enter a separate document
setting forth the judgment denying Dowell's motion to set aside a prior
judgment. However, in Hughes v. Halifax Co. Sch. Bd., 823 F.2d 832, 835 (4th
Cir. 1987), a panel of this Court stated that a brief order not containing a long
explanation could satisfy this separate document requirement. Here, the
magistrate judge's order was very brief and we find that it is sufficient to satisfy
the Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 requirements and to put Appellant on notice that time for
filing an appeal had commenced

You might also like