W.T. Parker v. C.G. Strickland

Eleventh Circuit

W.T. Parker v. C.G. Strickland

728 F.2d 1406, 38 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1623, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 23966

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedApril 2, 1984

Docket83-3423

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 728 F.2d 1406 (W.T. Parker v. C.G. Strickland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

W.T. Parker v. C.G. Strickland, 728 F.2d 1406, 38 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1623, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 23966 (11th Cir. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Final judgment was entered in this case on April 26, 1983. Appellant filed his notice of appeal fifty-seven days later, on June 22.

A notice of appeal is timely if filed within thirty days after the entry of final judgment. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1). An appellant can obtain an extension of time to appeal, based on excusable neglect, if he files a motion for such extension not later than thirty days after the time allotted for filing notice. Even a pro se appellant must make a specific motion for an extension. Brooks v. Britton, 669 F.2d 665, 6687 (11th Cir.1982). The approach would be different if this were a criminal case. We would treat the notice of appeal as a motion for extension of time if it were filed within the forty days following the entry of final judgment in the case. United States v. Ward, 696 F.2d 1315, 1317 (11th Cir.) cert. denied, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 2101, 77 L.Ed.2d 308 (1983). Compare Fed.R.App.P. 4(b) with Fed.R.App.P. 4(a).

The appeal is therefore

DISMISSED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Final judgment was entered in this case on April 26, 1983. Appellant filed his notice of appeal fifty-seven days later, on June 22.

A notice of appeal is timely if filed within thirty days after the entry of final judgment. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1). An appellant can obtain an extension of time to appeal, based on excusable neglect, if he files a motion for such extension not later than thirty days after the time allotted for filing notice. Even a pro se appellant must make a specific motion for an extension. Brooks v. Britton, 669 F.2d 665, 6687 (11th Cir.1982). The approach would be different if this were a criminal case. We would treat the notice of appeal as a motion for extension of time if it were filed within the forty days following the entry of final judgment in the case. United States v. Ward, 696 F.2d 1315, 1317 (11th Cir.) cert. denied, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 2101, 77 L.Ed.2d 308 (1983). Compare Fed.R.App.P. 4(b) with Fed.R.App.P. 4(a).

The appeal is therefore

DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

728 F.2d 1406, 38 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1623, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 23966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wt-parker-v-cg-strickland-ca11-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack