L. Romeo Hardin v. John Mathes

Eighth Circuit

L. Romeo Hardin v. John Mathes

344 F. App'x 290

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 1, 2009

Docket07-3137, 07-3140

StatusUnpublished

This text of 344 F. App'x 290 (L. Romeo Hardin v. John Mathes) 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

L. Romeo Hardin v. John Mathes, 344 F. App'x 290 (8th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Iowa inmates L. Romeo Hardin and Saleem Hamilton appeal the district court’s 1 entry of adverse judgment following a jury trial in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. In No. 07-3137, we reject Hardin’s contention that he did not waive his right to proceed before an Article III judge. The record shows that standby counsel signed a document reflecting plaintiffs’ consent to proceed before a magistrate judge. Further, Hardin did not identify this as an issue in his postjudgment motions or in his document listing numerous issues for appellate review. As to the merits, without a trial transcript we cannot review his challenges to the district court’s evidentiary rulings. See Schmid v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners, 827 F.2d 384, 386 (8th Cir.1987) (per curiam).

In No. 07-3140, Hamilton’s separately filed notice of appeal was untimely. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1),(3) (time limits for filing notice of appeal in civil case); Dieser v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 440 F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir.2006) (jurisdictional issues will be raised sua sponte if there is indication jurisdiction is lacking; timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional); see also Porchia v. Norris, 251 F.3d 1196, 1198 (8th Cir.2001) (inmate bears burden of proving his entitlement to benefit of prison mailbox rule); Burgs v. Johnson County, Iowa, 79 F.3d 701, 702 (8th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (untimely notice of appeal cannot serve as motion for extension of time to file appeal).

Accordingly, in Hardin’s appeal we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we also deny his pending motion. We dismiss Hamilton’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

1

. The Honorable Ross A. Walters, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

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

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Iowa inmates L. Romeo Hardin and Saleem Hamilton appeal the district court’s 1 entry of adverse judgment following a jury trial in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. In No. 07-3137, we reject Hardin’s contention that he did not waive his right to proceed before an Article III judge. The record shows that standby counsel signed a document reflecting plaintiffs’ consent to proceed before a magistrate judge. Further, Hardin did not identify this as an issue in his postjudgment motions or in his document listing numerous issues for appellate review. As to the merits, without a trial transcript we cannot review his challenges to the district court’s evidentiary rulings. See Schmid v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners, 827 F.2d 384, 386 (8th Cir.1987) (per curiam).

In No. 07-3140, Hamilton’s separately filed notice of appeal was untimely. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1),(3) (time limits for filing notice of appeal in civil case); Dieser v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 440 F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir.2006) (jurisdictional issues will be raised sua sponte if there is indication jurisdiction is lacking; timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional); see also Porchia v. Norris, 251 F.3d 1196, 1198 (8th Cir.2001) (inmate bears burden of proving his entitlement to benefit of prison mailbox rule); Burgs v. Johnson County, Iowa, 79 F.3d 701, 702 (8th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (untimely notice of appeal cannot serve as motion for extension of time to file appeal).

Accordingly, in Hardin’s appeal we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we also deny his pending motion. We dismiss Hamilton’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

1

. The Honorable Ross A. Walters, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

344 F. App'x 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/l-romeo-hardin-v-john-mathes-ca8-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack