Douglas Zeppeiro v. Robert E. Seaman, Iii, Robert E. Seaman, Iii, P.A., Seaman & Graham, a South Carolina Partnership

918 F.2d 174, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 20248, 1990 WL 178278
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 19, 1990
Docket90-2435
StatusUnpublished

This text of 918 F.2d 174 (Douglas Zeppeiro v. Robert E. Seaman, Iii, Robert E. Seaman, Iii, P.A., Seaman & Graham, a South Carolina Partnership) 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
Douglas Zeppeiro v. Robert E. Seaman, Iii, Robert E. Seaman, Iii, P.A., Seaman & Graham, a South Carolina Partnership, 918 F.2d 174, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 20248, 1990 WL 178278 (4th Cir. 1990).

Opinion

918 F.2d 174
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Douglas ZEPPEIRO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Robert E. SEAMAN, III, Robert E. Seaman, III, P.A., Seaman &
Graham, a South Carolina Partnership, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-2435.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 29, 1990.
Decided Nov. 19, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Karen L. Henderson, District Judge. (CA-88-450-3-16)

Douglas Zeppeiro, appellant pro se.

Susan Pedrick McWilliams, Nexsen, Pruet, Jacobs & Pollard, Columbia, S.C., for appellees.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before WIDENER, PHILLIPS and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Douglas Zeppeiro noted this appeal outside the 30-day appeal period established by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1), and 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 grant appellee's motion and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

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)
United States v. Bryant (Preston)
918 F.2d 174 (Fourth Circuit, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
918 F.2d 174, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 20248, 1990 WL 178278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/douglas-zeppeiro-v-robert-e-seaman-iii-robert-e-se-ca4-1990.