67 FAPPX 239 - Quiller v. Byrd

How this case has been cited

Cited by 134 later decisions (68 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2021 · most notably United States v. Escalante-Reyes (2012), Rodriguez v. Conagra Grocery Products Co. (2006)

11 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 Tyrone A. Quiller seeks to appeal the district court’s order substantially adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing Quiller’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

¶2 Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

¶3 The district court’s order was entered on the docket on March 7, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on April 13, *240 2003. * Because Quiller failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. Further, we deny Quiller’s motion to amend his informal brief 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.

¶4 DISMISSED.

¶5 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).