Ballard v. Walnut Creek Mining

Fifth Circuit

Ballard v. Walnut Creek Mining

101 F. App'x 528

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 24, 2004

Docket03-51040

StatusUnpublished

This text of 101 F. App'x 528 (Ballard v. Walnut Creek Mining) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ballard v. Walnut Creek Mining, 101 F. App'x 528 (5th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Margaret Ballard moves for permission to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) the dismissal of her complaint for damages pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as barred by the statute of limitations. Ballard’s notice of appeal, however, was untimely filed, and the district court did not err in denying her motion to reopen the period for filing a notice of appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6); Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 987 F.2d 1199, 1202 (5th Cir.1993). We are therefore without jurisdiction to entertain her appeal. See United States v. Merrifield, 764 F.2d 436, 437 (5th Cir.1985). Her IFP motion is therefore DENIED and the APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Margaret Ballard moves for permission to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) the dismissal of her complaint for damages pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as barred by the statute of limitations. Ballard’s notice of appeal, however, was untimely filed, and the district court did not err in denying her motion to reopen the period for filing a notice of appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6); Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 987 F.2d 1199, 1202 (5th Cir.1993). We are therefore without jurisdiction to entertain her appeal. See United States v. Merrifield, 764 F.2d 436, 437 (5th Cir.1985). Her IFP motion is therefore DENIED and the APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 F. App'x 528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ballard-v-walnut-creek-mining-ca5-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack