U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1998

Lumbard v. Harnett Cnty NC

Lumbard v. Harnett Cnty NC
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided June 10, 1998

Lumbard v. Harnett Cnty NC

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6123

CLYDE RONALD LUMBARD, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

HARNETT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA; EFFIE B.

WOODARD; CARON STEWART, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-690-5-BO)

Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 10, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clyde Ronald Lumbard, III, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Clyde Ronald Lumbard, III, filed an untimely notice of appeal.

We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods 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)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1).

The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on October 9, 1997; Lumbard's notice of appeal was filed on January 12, 1998, which is beyond the thirty-day appeal period. Lumbard's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Lumbard's appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We deny Lumbard's motions for a copy of the record on appeal, to appoint counsel, and to sub- stitute a party. We also deny his motion for oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.