Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    Scott v. Eniola, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Donrico Scott appealed a district court order granting summary judgment to the defendant in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. 2) The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Scott's notice of appeal was not filed within the mandatory 30-day period after the district court entered its order. 3) While pro se litigants are assumed to have filed a notice of appeal on the earliest possible date, Scott's notice of appeal was filed over 7 months after the district court's order, far outside the 30-day deadline.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Scott v. Eniola, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    14 views3 pages
    1) Donrico Scott appealed a district court order granting summary judgment to the defendant in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. 2) The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Scott's notice of appeal was not filed within the mandatory 30-day period after the district court entered its order. 3) While pro se litigants are assumed to have filed a notice of appeal on the earliest possible date, Scott's notice of appeal was filed over 7 months after the district court's order, far outside the 30-day deadline.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-08-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-6413

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Donrico Scott appealed a district court order granting summary judgment to the defendant in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. 2) The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Scott's notice of appeal was not filed within the mandatory 30-day period after the district court entered its order. 3) While pro se litigants are assumed to have filed a notice of appeal on the earliest possible date, Scott's notice of appeal was filed over 7 months after the district court's order, far outside the 30-day deadline.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    14 views3 pages

    Scott v. Eniola, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Donrico Scott appealed a district court order granting summary judgment to the defendant in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. 2) The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Scott's notice of appeal was not filed within the mandatory 30-day period after the district court entered its order. 3) While pro se litigants are assumed to have filed a notice of appeal on the earliest possible date, Scott's notice of appeal was filed over 7 months after the district court's order, far outside the 30-day deadline.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 07-6413

    DONRICO V. SCOTT,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    DOCTOR ENIOLA,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
    (8:05-cv-02060-AW)

    Submitted:

    July 31, 2007

    Decided:

    August 9, 2007

    Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Donrico V. Scott, Appellant Pro Se.


    Donald Joseph Crawford,
    ALDELMAN, SHEFF & SMITH, Rockville, Maryland; Philip Melton
    Andrews, Catherine Mary Manofsky, KRAMON & GRAHAM, Baltimore,
    Maryland, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Donrico V. Scott seeks to appeal the district courts
    order granting Defendants motion for summary judgment in this
    action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000).

    We dismiss the appeal for

    lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely


    filed.
    Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the
    district courts final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.
    App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 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).
    and jurisdictional.

    This appeal period is mandatory

    Browder v. Dir., Dept of Corr., 434 U.S.

    257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,
    229 (1960)).
    The district courts order was entered on the docket on
    June 28, 2006.
    2007.*

    The notice of appeal was filed on February 26,

    Because Scott failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

    obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss


    the appeal. We deny Scotts motion for general relief and dispense
    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

    For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date


    appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
    have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the
    court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
    - 2 -

    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument


    would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 3 -

    You might also like