Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
William Dial, Petitioner, v. Zeni-mckinney Williams Corporation; Director, Office Ofworkers' Compensation Programs, United Statesdepartment of Labor, Respondents
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 840 F.2d 10Unpublished Disposition
Submitted: Oct. 28, 1987.Decided: Feb. 9, 1988
William Dial, petitioner pro se.
William Henry Hcowe, Loomis, Owen, Fellman & Howe; James Michael O'Neill, Donald Steven Shire, Associate Solicitor, Ronald Gene Ray, Sr., Office of the Solicitor, for respondents.
Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
William H. Dial petitioned this Court to review a Benefits Review Board's judgment affirming an administrative law judge's decision denying him black lung benefits. Because we find that Dial's petition for review is untimely, we will grant the respondent's motion to dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction.
Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. Sec. 921(c) (1982), Dial had sixty days to appeal from the Benefits Review Board's decision. See also Butcher v. Big Mountain Coal, Inc., 802 F.2d 1506, 1507 (4th Cir.1986) (Benefits Review Board's final orders are reviewable in court of appeals if petition for review is filed within sixty days of order's issuance). The Benefits Review Board's decision was issued on July 27, 1987. Dial had until September 25, 1987, to file a timely petition for review. Sixty-three days later, on September 28, 1987, Dial filed his petition.
As Dial's filing is untimely, we lack jurisdiction to review the merits of his petition. Because the dispositive issues have recently been decided authoritatively, we dispense with oral argument, grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and grant the respondent's motion to dismiss.
DISMISSED.