Paquette v. McGhee

59 F.3d 167, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23471, 1995 WL 376182
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 26, 1995
Docket95-6370
StatusPublished

This text of 59 F.3d 167 (Paquette v. McGhee) 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
Paquette v. McGhee, 59 F.3d 167, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23471, 1995 WL 376182 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

59 F.3d 167
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Bruce J. PAQUETTE, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
Seward M. McGHEE, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney, Hanover
County; Steven Rosenthal; Donald A. Denton, Attorney at
Law; James C. Dimitris, Dr., Physician, Central State
Hospital; Henry O. Gwaltney, Jr., Dr., Psychologist,
Central State Hospital; Robert Q. Harris, Assistant State
Attorney General, Defendants--Appellees.

No. 95-6370.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 18, 1995.
Decided: June 26, 1995.

Bruce J. Paquette, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, 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.

DISMISSED.

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)
59 F.3d 167, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23471, 1995 WL 376182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paquette-v-mcghee-ca4-1995.