Brofford v. Social Sec. Admin. of Dept. of Health and Human Services, Office of Disability Operations

Sixth Circuit

Brofford v. Social Sec. Admin. of Dept. of Health and Human Services, Office of Disability Operations

863 F.2d 883, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 16341, 1988 WL 128075

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedDecember 2, 1988

Docket88-3876

StatusUnpublished

This text of 863 F.2d 883 (Brofford v. Social Sec. Admin. of Dept. of Health and Human Services, Office of Disability Operations) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brofford v. Social Sec. Admin. of Dept. of Health and Human Services, Office of Disability Operations, 863 F.2d 883, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 16341, 1988 WL 128075 (6th Cir. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

863 F.2d 883

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Lloyd E. BROFFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OF the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES, OFFICE OF DISABILITY
OPERATIONS; Social Security
Administration Office,
Lebanon, Ohio,
Defendants-
Appellees.

No. 88-3876.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Dec. 2, 1988.

Before KEITH and KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judges, and CONTIE, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

This appeal has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

A review of the record indicates that appellant filed a 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 civil rights complaint alleging that he was denied Social Security benefits in 1966 and 1967. The complaint was dismissed by order entered September 9, 1988. A motion for reconsideration was served on September 14, 1988, and filed on September 16. The timely Rule 59(e) motion tolled the appeals period as prescribed by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4). Marrical v. Detroit News, Inc., 805 F.2d 169, 171 (6th Cir.1986) (per curiam); Myers v. Ace Hardware, Inc., 777 F.2d 1099, 1102-03 (6th Cir.1985); Peake v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 717 F.2d 1016, 1018-20 (6th Cir.1983). The September 16, 1988, notice of appeal filed prior to the disposition of the rule 59(e) motion is premature. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4) provides that a notice of appeal filed before the disposition of a timely Rule 59(e) motion "shall have no effect. A new notice of appeal must be filed within the prescribed time measured from the entry of the order disposing of the motion...." A timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Acosta v. Louisiana Dep't of HHR, 478 U.S. 251 (1986) (per curiam); Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982) (per curiam).

It is ORDERED that the appeal be and hereby is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Rule 9(b)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

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

863 F.2d 883

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) 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 Sixth Circuit.
Lloyd E. BROFFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OF the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES, OFFICE OF DISABILITY
OPERATIONS; Social Security
Administration Office,
Lebanon, Ohio,
Defendants-
Appellees.

No. 88-3876.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Dec. 2, 1988.

Before KEITH and KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judges, and CONTIE, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

This appeal has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

A review of the record indicates that appellant filed a 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 civil rights complaint alleging that he was denied Social Security benefits in 1966 and 1967. The complaint was dismissed by order entered September 9, 1988. A motion for reconsideration was served on September 14, 1988, and filed on September 16. The timely Rule 59(e) motion tolled the appeals period as prescribed by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4). Marrical v. Detroit News, Inc., 805 F.2d 169, 171 (6th Cir.1986) (per curiam); Myers v. Ace Hardware, Inc., 777 F.2d 1099, 1102-03 (6th Cir.1985); Peake v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 717 F.2d 1016, 1018-20 (6th Cir.1983). The September 16, 1988, notice of appeal filed prior to the disposition of the rule 59(e) motion is premature. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4) provides that a notice of appeal filed before the disposition of a timely Rule 59(e) motion "shall have no effect. A new notice of appeal must be filed within the prescribed time measured from the entry of the order disposing of the motion...." A timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Acosta v. Louisiana Dep't of HHR, 478 U.S. 251 (1986) (per curiam); Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982) (per curiam).

It is ORDERED that the appeal be and hereby is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Rule 9(b)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

863 F.2d 883, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 16341, 1988 WL 128075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brofford-v-social-sec-admin-of-dept-of-health-and-human-services-ca6-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack