Price v. Saxton, 934 F.2d 319 (4th Cir. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Price v. Saxton, 934 F.2d 319 (4th Cir. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
66 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Ford (In Re Ford) (ganb, 1995-08-29)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Ford (In Re Ford) (2×) also: Cited "see"
Bankr. N.D. Ga. · 1995 · confidence medium
Hoffman, 934 F.2d at 319; Eashai, 167 B.R. at 185; CollieR at ¶ 523.08 (citations omitted). *321 V.
discussed Cited "see" Little v. Young
D.S.C. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Metpath, Inc. v. Modern Medicine, 934 F.2d 319 , 1991 WL 87534, at *2-3 (4th Cir. 1991) (discussing conditions under which the court may permit withdrawal or amendment of admissions and holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the untimely responses).
cited Cited "see" BROWN v. O'MALLEY
M.D.N.C. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Johnson v. Knable, 934 F.2d 319 (Table), 1991 WL 87147, at *1 (4th Cir. May 28, 1991) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" Segal v. Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP
N.D.W. Va. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Medpath, Inc. v. Modern Medicine, 934 F.2d 319 , *2 (4th Cir. 1991) (unpublished) (citing favorably Gutting v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 710 F.2d 1309, 1312 (8th Cir. 1983)).
cited Cited "see" Tuimavave v. Siua
amsamoa · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Metpath, Inc. v. Modern Medicine, 934 F.2d 319 (4th Cir. 1991).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Post v. Brodnik
Bankr. S.D.W. Va. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
Something more is required.” Gwynn v. City of Philadelphia, 719 F.3d 295, 299 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting Bergemann v. United States, 820 F.3d 1117 , 1121 (10th Cir. 1987)); see also Metpath, Inc. v. Modern Med., 934 F.2d 319 (4th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision) (prejudice results where requesting party faces difficulty proving case because of the “sudden need to obtain evidence required to prove the matter that had been admitted”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James Edward Price
v.
Samuel F. Saxton, Director County Correctional Center, Al Cohen, Grievance Chairman, T.D. Simmons, Classification Board, Tina M. Williams, 360 Correctional Officer, Ms. Smither, Law Library Staff, John Doe I, Correctional Officer, John Doe Ii, Mail Clerk
91-7049.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
May 29, 1991.
934 F.2d 319
Unpublished

934 F.2d 319
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
James Edward PRICE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Samuel F. SAXTON, Director County Correctional Center, Al
Cohen, Grievance Chairman, T.D. Simmons, Classification
Board, Tina M. Williams, # 360 Correctional Officer, Ms.
Smither, Law Library Staff, John Doe I, Correctional
Officer, John Doe II, Mail Clerk, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 91-7049.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

May 29, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Walter E. Black, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-90-1570-B)

James Edward Price, appellant pro se.

Crystal R. Dixon, Upper Marlboro, Md., for appellees.

Before DONALD RUSSELL, WILKINSON and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

James Edward Price noted this appeal outside the 30-day appeal period established by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1), and failed to move for an extension of the appeal period within the additional 30-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 grant appellee's motion to dismiss and deny appellant's motion for the appointment of counsel 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.

2

DISMISSED.