Terry Sweeney v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor

976 F.2d 727, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 24911, 1992 WL 245866
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 30, 1992
Docket92-1615
StatusUnpublished

This text of 976 F.2d 727 (Terry Sweeney v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor) 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
Terry Sweeney v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, 976 F.2d 727, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 24911, 1992 WL 245866 (4th Cir. 1992).

Opinion

976 F.2d 727

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Terry SWEENEY, Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, United
States Department of Labor, Respondent.

No. 92-1615.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 8, 1992
Decided: September 30, 1992

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (91-1388-BLA)

Terry Sweeney, Petitioner Pro Se.

Kathleen Mary Bole, Barbara J. Johnson, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT of LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Ben.Rev.Bd.

DISMISSED.

Before PHILLIPS, SPROUSE, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

Terry M. Sweeney noted this appeal outside the sixty-day appeal period established by 33 U.S.C. § 921(c) (1988). The time period established by 33 U.S.C. § 921(c) is jurisdictional. Adkins v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 889 F.2d 1360, 1363 (4th Cir. 1989). Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
976 F.2d 727, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 24911, 1992 WL 245866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terry-sweeney-v-director-office-of-workers-compens-ca4-1992.