Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    23 views4 pages
    This document summarizes four appeals by Joseph Bowler of district court orders denying his motions to reinstate four previously dismissed §1983 actions. The appeals were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Bowler's notices of appeal were not timely filed within the mandatory 30-day period after the district court entered its orders on June 11, 2003. Bowler's notices of appeal were postmarked and filed on July 14-15, 2003, outside the jurisdictional deadline.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-10-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-7090

    Original Title

    Bowler v. Young, 4th Cir. (2003)

    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 four appeals by Joseph Bowler of district court orders denying his motions to reinstate four previously dismissed §1983 actions. The appeals were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Bowler's notices of appeal were not timely filed within the mandatory 30-day period after the district court entered its orders on June 11, 2003. Bowler's notices of appeal were postmarked and filed on July 14-15, 2003, outside the jurisdictional deadline.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    23 views4 pages

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes four appeals by Joseph Bowler of district court orders denying his motions to reinstate four previously dismissed §1983 actions. The appeals were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Bowler's notices of appeal were not timely filed within the mandatory 30-day period after the district court entered its orders on June 11, 2003. Bowler's notices of appeal were postmarked and filed on July 14-15, 2003, outside the jurisdictional deadline.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 03-7090

    JOSEPH BOWLER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    S.K. YOUNG, Warden; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
    LINGERFELT; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FLEENOR,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    No. 03-7102

    JOSEPH BOWLER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    S.K. YOUNG,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    No. 03-7111

    JOSEPH BOWLER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,

    versus
    I. HAMILTON,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    No. 03-7113

    JOSEPH BOWLER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    S.K. YOUNG; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HAMILTON;
    LIEUTENANT
    COMPTON;
    LIEUTENANT
    JONES;
    CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BLILEY; CORRECTIONAL
    OFFICER
    LINGERFELT;
    CORRECTIONAL
    OFFICER
    MCCRAY; SERGEANT YOUNCE; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
    FLEENOR; SERGEANT COLLINS,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-03-231-7, CA-02-1227-7, CA-03-10-7, CA-03-148)

    Submitted:

    September 30, 2003

    Decided:

    October 8, 2003

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Joseph Bowler, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Joseph Bowler seeks to appeal the district courts orders
    denying his motions to reinstate four previously dismissed actions
    filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000).

    We dismiss the appeal

    for lack of jurisdiction because the notices of appeal were not


    timely filed.
    Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the
    district courts final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.
    App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal
    period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period
    under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

    This appeal period is mandatory

    and jurisdictional. Browder v. Director, Dept of Corr., 434 U.S.


    257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,
    229 (1960)).
    The district courts orders denying reinstatement were entered
    on the docket on June 11, 2003.

    The notices of appeal were

    postmarked July 14, 2003, and filed on July 15, 2003.


    App. P. 4(c).

    See Fed. R.

    Because Bowler failed to file timely notices of

    appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,


    we dismiss the appeals. We deny Bowlers motion for appointment of
    counsel and 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

    You might also like