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
Alexander Renee De Montigny, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Carl Legursky, Warden, Defendant-appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 955 F.2d 40
Submitted Feb. 3, 1992.Decided Feb. 13, 1992
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins, No. CA-91-69-E, Robert Earl Maxwell, Chief District Judge.
Alexander Renee De Montigny, appellant pro se.
Rita A. Stuart, Paul Jordan, Department of Corrections, Charleston, W.Va., for appellee.
N.D.W.Va.
DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM:
Alexander Renee De Montigny noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal period established by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1), and failed to obtain an extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day period provided by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5).* The time periods established by Fed.R.App.P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives this Court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 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.