Jossie Gaile Simuel v. S.I.M. Subsidiary Management Hilltop Manor

23 F.3d 403, 1994 WL 118142
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedApril 4, 1994
Docket94-1012
StatusPublished

This text of 23 F.3d 403 (Jossie Gaile Simuel v. S.I.M. Subsidiary Management Hilltop Manor) 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
Jossie Gaile Simuel v. S.I.M. Subsidiary Management Hilltop Manor, 23 F.3d 403, 1994 WL 118142 (4th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

23 F.3d 403
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Jossie Gaile SIMUEL, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
S.I.M. SUBSIDIARY MANAGEMENT HILLTOP MANOR, Defendant Appellee.

No. 94-1012.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 17, 1994.
Decided: April 4, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-92-1976).

Jossie Gaile Simuel, Appellant Pro Se.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before PHILLIPS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal period established by Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day period provided by Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to relief under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). 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 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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 F.3d 403, 1994 WL 118142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jossie-gaile-simuel-v-sim-subsidiary-management-hi-ca4-1994.