Christopher Wilson Ferguson v. Nathan A. Rice David W. Chester Attorney Gen. of the State of North Carolina, 803 F.2d 1180 (4th Cir. 1986). · Go Syfert
Christopher Wilson Ferguson v. Nathan A. Rice David W. Chester Attorney Gen. of the State of North Carolina, 803 F.2d 1180 (4th Cir. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
27 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Findley v. Blankenship (scd, 2025-06-17)
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Findley v. Blankenship
D.S.C. · 2025 · confidence medium
A federal district court may issue a writ of mandamus only against an employee or official The writ cannot be issued against state officials or employees such as Respondents in this case. 474 F.2d 1275 , 1275–76 (5th Cir.1973) (federal courts do not have original jurisdiction over mandamus actions to compel an officer or employee to perform a duty owed to the petitioner); 264 F.3d 730, 731 (7th Cir.2001) (same; collecting cases); 803 F.2d 1180, 1180 (4th Cir., Oct 24, 1986) (unpublished opinion) (same). , No. CIV.A 8:073923TLWBHH, 2008 WL 4542874 , at *2 (D.S.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of South Carolina v. Keyshon Anthony Poinsette, Jr.
D.S.C. · 2024 · confidence medium
See Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Sup. Court, 474 F.2d 1275 , 1275–76 (5th Cir.1973) (federal courts do not have original jurisdiction over mandamus actions to compel an officer or employee of a state to perform a duty owed to the petitioner); see also In re Campbell, 264 F.3d 730, 731 (7th Cir. 2001) (collecting cases); Jn re Carr, 803 F.2d 1180, 1180 (4th Cir. Oct. 24, 1986).
cited Cited "see" In Re Long Bay Dunes Homeowners Ass'n, Inc.
Bankr. D.S.C. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Fowler, 92-72920-B (Bankr.D.S.C.1993) (citing Central Fidelity Bank v. Coogan (In re Coogan), 803 F.2d 1180 , 1986 WL 17896 (4th Cir.1986)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Christopher Wilson Ferguson
v.
Nathan A. Rice David W. Chester Attorney General of the State of North Carolina
86-6682.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Oct 20, 1986.
803 F.2d 1180
Unpublished

803 F.2d 1180
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished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.
Christopher Wilson FERGUSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Nathan A. RICE; David W. Chester; Attorney General of the
State of North Carolina, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 86-6682.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 28, 1986.
Decided Oct. 20, 1986.

Christopher Wilson Ferguson, appellant pro se.

M.D.N.C.

DISMISSED.

Before HALL, PHILLIPS and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Christopher Wilson Ferguson, a North Carolina prisoner, appeals the district court's denial of his request for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Ferguson filed a petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254, challenging his state court conviction for rape. The district court dismissed the petition with prejudice and entered judgment on May 14, 1986. On June 23, 1986, Ferguson filed a motion requesting the district court to grant him an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. As a showing of excusable neglect, Ferguson represented to the district court that (1) "I place the blame upon the Federal Courts for not informing me that I had only 30 days"; and (2) "I was so disappointed in the judgment that I was weak and I simply lay in bed, helpless, weeping." On June 30, 1986, the district court denied the motion. On July 16, 1986, Ferguson noted a timely appeal to this denial.

2

Under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1), an appeal must be noted within thirty days after the entry of judgment. Under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5), a district court, upon a showing of excusable neglect, may extend the time for filing by an additional thirty days. Excusable neglect is to be found when a party receives no notice of an entry of judgment, or when extraordinary and/or unique circumstances occur. United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 508 F.Supp. 187, 192 (E.D.Va.1981). On appeal, this Court's review is limited to whether the district court abused its discretion in refusing to find excusable neglect. McGarr v. United States, 736 F.2d 912, 919 (3rd Cir.1984). Here we find no such abuse. Because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dispense with oral argument, and dismiss the appeal.

3

DISMISSED.