W.T. Parker v. C.G. Strickland
W.T. PARKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.G. STRICKLAND, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
Final judgment was entered in this case on April 26, 1983. Appellant filed his notice of appeal fifty-seven days later, on June 22.
A notice of appeal is timely if filed within thirty days after the entry of final judgment. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1). An appellant can obtain an extension of time to appeal, based on excusable neglect, if he files a motion for such extension not later than thirty days after the time allotted for filing notice. Even a pro se appellant must make a specific motion for an extension.
Brooks v. Britton, 669 F.2d 665, 6687 (11th Cir.1982). The approach would be different if this were a criminal case. We would treat the notice of appeal as a motion for extension of time if it were filed within the forty days following the entry of final judgment in the case.
United States v. Ward, 696 F.2d 1315, 1317 (11th Cir.)
cert. denied, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 2101 , 77 L.Ed.2d 308 (1983).
Compare Fed.R.App.P. 4(b)
with Fed.R.App.P. 4(a).
The appeal is therefore DISMISSED.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(noting that an appellant “must make a specific motion for an extension”)
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.