Luanna Wells v. Lamson & Sessions
This text of 2 F. App'x 641 (Luanna Wells v. Lamson & Sessions) 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.
Opinion
Luanna Wells appeals following the district court’s adverse grants of summary judgment in her civil lawsuit. Thirty-four days following entry of final judgment, Wells moved the district court for an extension of time to file an appeal. She was therefore required to provide notice of her motion to the opposing parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5)(B). Because she failed to do so, the district court lacked authority to grant the motion and Wells’s ensuing notice of appeal was untimely. See Hable v. Pairolero, 915 F.2d 394, 394-95 (8th Cir.1990) (district court lacked jurisdiction to order extension where party filed motion more than 30 days after judgment and failed to notify opposing parties; filing requirements for appeals are mandatory and jurisdictional).
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2 F. App'x 641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luanna-wells-v-lamson-sessions-ca8-2001.