Dallas Ray Delay v. Jay Nixon

Eighth Circuit

Dallas Ray Delay v. Jay Nixon

73 F. App'x 895

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedAugust 22, 2003

Docket03-2138

StatusUnpublished

This text of 73 F. App'x 895 (Dallas Ray Delay v. Jay Nixon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dallas Ray Delay v. Jay Nixon, 73 F. App'x 895 (8th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Dallas Ray Delay appeals from the district court’s 1 dismissal of his civil action and denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion. The district court entered its judgment dismissing the complaint on November 25, 2002. Delay’s Rule 59(e) motion was filed on December 23 and denied on March 27. Delay filed a notice of appeal on April 4.

Because the postjudgment motion was not filed within ten days of entry of judgment, even giving Delay the benefit of the *896 date on his motion, see Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), it did not toll the time for appeal from the underlying judgment, see Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). The notice of appeal was therefore filed more than thirty days after entry of judgment and we lack jurisdiction to consider the court’s order dismissing Delay’s complaint. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a). The postjudgment motion also was untimely under Rule 59(e), see Fed.R.Civ.P. 59, and thus the district court’s ruling on it was a nullity, see Garrett v. United States, 195 F.3d 1032, 1033 (8th Cir.1999), and we lack jurisdiction to review that ruling as well, see Arnold v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir.2001).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

1

. The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

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

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Dallas Ray Delay appeals from the district court’s 1 dismissal of his civil action and denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion. The district court entered its judgment dismissing the complaint on November 25, 2002. Delay’s Rule 59(e) motion was filed on December 23 and denied on March 27. Delay filed a notice of appeal on April 4.

Because the postjudgment motion was not filed within ten days of entry of judgment, even giving Delay the benefit of the *896 date on his motion, see Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), it did not toll the time for appeal from the underlying judgment, see Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). The notice of appeal was therefore filed more than thirty days after entry of judgment and we lack jurisdiction to consider the court’s order dismissing Delay’s complaint. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a). The postjudgment motion also was untimely under Rule 59(e), see Fed.R.Civ.P. 59, and thus the district court’s ruling on it was a nullity, see Garrett v. United States, 195 F.3d 1032, 1033 (8th Cir.1999), and we lack jurisdiction to review that ruling as well, see Arnold v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir.2001).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

1

. The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 F. App'x 895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dallas-ray-delay-v-jay-nixon-ca8-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack