Hammond v. Lovings
This text of 678 F. App'x 231 (Hammond v. Lovings) 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.
Opinion
Appellant Rodney J. Hammond seeks to appeal the district court’s ruling awarding defendants attorney fees. The order was entered July 1,2016. Hammond was therefore required to file his notice of appeal by August 1, 2016.. On that day, he attempted to file the notice of appeal, but inadvertently filed a document entitled “Plaintiffs Response to Court’s Order to Show Cause.” The next day, the court issued a “Deficiency Notice” informing him of the error. On August 2, 2016,’Hammond filed his notice of appeal.
Hammond’s notice of appeal was -untimely, and this appeal must therefore be dismissed. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The unusual circumstances surrounding Hammond’s late filing do not change this outcome. Kinsley v. Lakeview Regional Medical Center LLC is squarely on point and controls. See 570 F.3d 586, 590 (5th Cir. 2009).
DISMISSED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
678 F. App'x 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammond-v-lovings-ca5-2017.