William Dial v. Zeni-Mckinney Williams Corp. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 840 F.2d 10 (4th Cir. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
William Dial v. Zeni-Mckinney Williams Corp. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 840 F.2d 10 (4th Cir. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
38 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Eloy Mascorro v. The County of San Diego, et al. (casd, 2025-11-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Eloy Mascorro v. The County of San Diego, et al. (2×)
S.D. Cal. · 2025 · confidence medium
Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) allows a defendant to move to dismiss for 7 “insufficient service of process.” “A federal court does not have jurisdiction over a 8 defendant unless the defendant has been served properly under [Federal Rule of Civil 9 Procedure] 4.” Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Techs., Inc., 840 F.2d 10 685, 688 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Omni Cap.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (PS) Douglas v. The Ezralow Co., LLC.
E.D. Cal. · 2024 · confidence medium
See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (“we have 8 never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to 9 excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel”); Direct Mail Specialists, Inc., 840 F.2d 10 at 688.
cited Cited "see" Ackerley Communications of Massachusetts, Inc. v. City of Somerville
D. Mass. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jackson v. City of Charlottesville, 659 F.Supp. 470 (W.D.Va.1987), aff'd in part on other grounds, vacated in part on other grounds, 840 F.2d 10 (4th Cir.1988).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." National Advertising Co. v. Town of Babylon
E.D.N.Y · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Jackson v. City Council of Charlottesville, 659 F.Supp. 470, 473 (W.D.Va.1987), modified on other grounds, 840 F.2d 10 (4th Cir.1988); Matthews v. Town of Needham, 596 F.Supp. 932, 935 (D.C.Mass.1984), aff' d, 764 F.2d 58 (1st Cir.1985).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Reagan v. Hampton
M.D.N.C. · 1988 · signal: see also · confidence low
For a discussion of the appropriate limitation period in Virginia, see generally Pagan, Virginia’s Statute of Limitations for Section 1983 Claims after Wilson v. Garcia, 19 U.Rich.L.Rev. 257 (1985); see also Jackson v. *853 City Council of Charlottesville, 659 F.Supp. 470, 474-75 (W.D.Va.1987), aff’d in part, vacated in part, 840 F.2d 10 (4th Cir.1988) (without opinion).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
William Dial
v.
Zeni-Mckinney Williams Corporation Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor
87-1169.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Feb 9, 1988.
840 F.2d 10
Unpublished

840 F.2d 10
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.
William DIAL, Petitioner,
v.
ZENI-McKINNEY WILLIAMS CORPORATION; Director, Office of
Workers' Compensation Programs, United States
Department of Labor, Respondents.

No. 87-1169.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 28, 1987.
Decided: Feb. 9, 1988.

William Dial, petitioner pro se.

William Henry Hcowe, Loomis, Owen, Fellman & Howe; James Michael O'Neill, Donald Steven Shire, Associate Solicitor, Ronald Gene Ray, Sr., Office of the Solicitor, for respondents.

Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

William H. Dial petitioned this Court to review a Benefits Review Board's judgment affirming an administrative law judge's decision denying him black lung benefits. Because we find that Dial's petition for review is untimely, we will grant the respondent's motion to dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction.

2

Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. Sec. 921(c) (1982), Dial had sixty days to appeal from the Benefits Review Board's decision. See also Butcher v. Big Mountain Coal, Inc., 802 F.2d 1506, 1507 (4th Cir.1986) (Benefits Review Board's final orders are reviewable in court of appeals if petition for review is filed within sixty days of order's issuance). The Benefits Review Board's decision was issued on July 27, 1987. Dial had until September 25, 1987, to file a timely petition for review. Sixty-three days later, on September 28, 1987, Dial filed his petition.

3

As Dial's filing is untimely, we lack jurisdiction to review the merits of his petition. Because the dispositive issues have recently been decided authoritatively, we dispense with oral argument, grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and grant the respondent's motion to dismiss.

4

DISMISSED.