Robert L. Creager v. William H. Dallman, Supt.

933 F.2d 1007, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 16783, 1991 WL 89945
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedMay 30, 1991
Docket91-3304
StatusUnpublished

This text of 933 F.2d 1007 (Robert L. Creager v. William H. Dallman, Supt.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Robert L. Creager v. William H. Dallman, Supt., 933 F.2d 1007, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 16783, 1991 WL 89945 (6th Cir. 1991).

Opinion

933 F.2d 1007

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Robert L. CREAGER, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
William H. DALLMAN, Supt., Respondent-Appellee.

No. 91-3304.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 30, 1991.

Before RALPH B. GUY, Jr. and RYAN, Circuit Judges, and JOINER, Senior District Judge*.

ORDER

This appeal has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

A review of the documents before the court indicates that the judgment of the district court was entered on February 28, 1991. Petitioner served a motion for reconsideration on March 7, 1991. Next, petitioner filed a notice of appeal on March 19, 1991, before the district court ruled on petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

Generally, a motion for reconsideration of the merits of a decision served within 10 days of judgment is construed as a Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment White v. New Hampshire Dep't of Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445 451 (1982). A timely Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion tolls the appeal period. Marrical v. Detroit News, Inc., 805 F.2d 169, 171 (6th Cir.1986) (per curiam). Moreover, a notice of appeal filed while a timely Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion is pending has no effect. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4); Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 173-74 (1989). A timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Osterneck, 489 U.S. at 173-74.

Here, petitioner's notice of appeal filed March 19, 1991, is premature. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was served within 10 days of the district court's judgment, tolling the appeals period. Petitioner's notice of appeal, filed before the district court ruled on the motion for reconsideration, has no effect. Therefore, this court has no jurisdiction over this appeal.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Rule 8(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

*

The Honorable Charles W. Joiner, Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation

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

Related

Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney
489 U.S. 169 (Supreme Court, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
933 F.2d 1007, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 16783, 1991 WL 89945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-l-creager-v-william-h-dallman-supt-ca6-1991.