Carr v. Carlton

Fifth Circuit

Carr v. Carlton

145 F. App'x 494

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 5, 2005

Docket04-60968

StatusUnpublished

This text of 145 F. App'x 494 (Carr v. Carlton) 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

Carr v. Carlton, 145 F. App'x 494 (5th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Gregory Paul Carr has filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, following the denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We must examine the basis of our jurisdiction sua sponte if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). A timely notice of appeal is necessary for this court to exercise jurisdiction. Robbins v. Maggio, 750 F.2d 405, 408 (5th Cir.1985). The magistrate judge, proceeding with the consent of the parties, entered final judgment in the instant case on September 14, 2004. Carr admits that he did not mail his notice of appeal until October 19, 2004. Carr’s notice of appeal was therefore not filed within the 30 days for filing an appeal in a civil case. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). This court is thus without jurisdiction to consider Carr’s case. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Carr’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

Gregory Paul Carr has filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, following the denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We must examine the basis of our jurisdiction sua sponte if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). A timely notice of appeal is necessary for this court to exercise jurisdiction. Robbins v. Maggio, 750 F.2d 405, 408 (5th Cir.1985). The magistrate judge, proceeding with the consent of the parties, entered final judgment in the instant case on September 14, 2004. Carr admits that he did not mail his notice of appeal until October 19, 2004. Carr’s notice of appeal was therefore not filed within the 30 days for filing an appeal in a civil case. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). This court is thus without jurisdiction to consider Carr’s case. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Carr’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED.

*

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)

145 F. App'x 494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carr-v-carlton-ca5-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack