Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Frank M. Neff v. State of Maryland Talbot County, Maryland Easton, Maryland Police Department Social Service, 40 F.3d 1244, 4th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    78 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court dismissed an appeal from Frank Neff of a district court's denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. The appeals court lacked jurisdiction because Neff failed to sign his notice of appeal, as required. Additionally, Neff missed both the initial 30-day deadline and 30-day extension period to file a notice of appeal under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1994-11-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 40 F.3d 1244 Docket: 94-6427

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court dismissed an appeal from Frank Neff of a district court's denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. The appeals court lacked jurisdiction because Neff failed to sign his notice of appeal, as required. Additionally, Neff missed both the initial 30-day deadline and 30-day extension period to file a notice of appeal under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    78 views2 pages

    Frank M. Neff v. State of Maryland Talbot County, Maryland Easton, Maryland Police Department Social Service, 40 F.3d 1244, 4th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court dismissed an appeal from Frank Neff of a district court's denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. The appeals court lacked jurisdiction because Neff failed to sign his notice of appeal, as required. Additionally, Neff missed both the initial 30-day deadline and 30-day extension period to file a notice of appeal under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    40 F.

    3d 1244

    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.
    Frank M. NEFF, Petitioner Appellant,
    v.
    STATE of Maryland; Talbot County, Maryland; Easton,
    Maryland Police Department; Social Service,
    Respondents Appellees.
    No. 94-6427.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted Sept. 26, 1994.
    Decided Nov. 2, 1994.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
    at Baltimore. M. J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-94-655-MJG).
    Frank M. Neff, Appellant Pro Se.
    D.Md.
    DISMISSED.
    Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and HAMILTON, Circuit
    Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Frank Neff appeals from the district court's order signed March 24, 1994, and
    entered March 28, 1994, denying relief under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988). We
    dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
    Although warned by this Court of his failure to sign his notice of appeal, Neff

    failed to amend his notice of appeal. The unsigned notice of appeal did not
    confer jurisdiction on this Court. Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63 (4th
    Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 914 (1981). Moreover, the thirty-day appeal
    period prescribed by Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1), and the additional thirty-day
    period prescribed by Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5) for seeking an extension of the
    filing period, have both expired.* Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
    probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

    Even if Neff's signed docketing statement filed on May 27, 1994, were
    construed as a notice of appeal (See Smith v. Barry, 60 U.S.L.W. 4065
    (U.S.1992)), it was not timely under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)

    You might also like