Donnell Thompson v. Harry L. Allsbrook, Attorney General of North Carolina

862 F.2d 315, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 14814, 1988 WL 119137
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 8, 1988
Docket88-7738
StatusUnpublished

This text of 862 F.2d 315 (Donnell Thompson v. Harry L. Allsbrook, Attorney General of North Carolina) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Donnell Thompson v. Harry L. Allsbrook, Attorney General of North Carolina, 862 F.2d 315, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 14814, 1988 WL 119137 (4th Cir. 1988).

Opinion

862 F.2d 315
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Donnell THOMPSON, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Harry L. ALLSBROOK, Attorney General of North Carolina,
Respondents-Appellees.

No. 88-7738.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 21, 1988.
Decided Nov. 8, 1988.

Donnell Thompson, appellant pro se.

Richard Norwood League, Office of Attorney General of North Carolina, for appellees.

Before K.K. HALL, MURNAGHAN, and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Donnell Thompson, a state prisoner, submitted his notice of appeal to prison authorities outside the 30-day period established by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1).1 It was therefore untimely. See Houston v. Lack, 56 U.S.L.W. 4728 (U.S. June 24, 1988) (No. 87-5428). In addition, he failed to move for an extension of the appeal period within the additional 30-day period provided by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5).

The time periods established by Fed.R.App.P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives this Court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore deny a certificate of probable cause and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and oral argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

1

For the purposes of this appeal, we assume that the date Thompson placed on the notice of appeal is the earliest date he would have submitted it to prison authorities

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

Related

United States v. Robinson
361 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court, 1960)
Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill.
434 U.S. 257 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Houston v. Lack
487 U.S. 266 (Supreme Court, 1988)
United States v. Laupert (Oscar Thomas)
862 F.2d 315 (Fourth Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
862 F.2d 315, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 14814, 1988 WL 119137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donnell-thompson-v-harry-l-allsbrook-attorney-general-of-north-carolina-ca4-1988.