Vance v. DOWCP

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJuly 9, 1996
Docket95-2408
StatusUnpublished

This text of Vance v. DOWCP (Vance v. DOWCP) 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
Vance v. DOWCP, (4th Cir. 1996).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2408

PATSY G. VANCE, Widow of Kenneth Vance,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PRO- GRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondent - Appellee.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (92-1108-BLA)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 9, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patsy G. Vance, Appellant Pro Se. Christian P. Barber, Jennifer U. Toth, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decision

and order affirming the administrative law judge's denial of black

lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp.

1996). Appellant noted this appeal outside the sixty-day appeal

period established by 33 U.S.C. § 921(c) (1988). A late notice of appeal precludes this court's jurisdiction to review the decision

of the Board. Adkins v. Director, OWCP, 889 F.2d 1360, 1361 (4th Cir. 1989). The Board entered its final order on March 13, 1995;

Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on July 17, 1995. Appel-

lant's failure to note a timely appeal deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore grant the Direc-

tor's motion to dismiss the appeal and suspend the briefing sched-

ule. 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)
Vance v. DOWCP, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vance-v-dowcp-ca4-1996.