Hartford Fire Insurance v. Medlin
Hartford Fire Insurance v. Medlin
Opinion
Richard D. Medlin seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b)(5) motion for relief from judgment. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Medliris notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on January 10, 2002. Medliris notice of appeal was filed on February 19, 2002. * Because Medlin failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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.
Because Medlin is a prisoner, his notice of appeal is considered filed the day it is signed and delivered to prison authorities. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.