Patricia Lewis, Mother & Next Friend of Davin Lewis v. Louis W. Sullivan, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 954 F.2d 720 (4th Cir. 1992). · Go Syfert
Patricia Lewis, Mother & Next Friend of Davin Lewis v. Louis W. Sullivan, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 954 F.2d 720 (4th Cir. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Patricia Lewis, Mother and Next Friend of Davin Lewis
v.
Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services
91-1177.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Feb 11, 1992.
954 F.2d 720
Unpublished

954 F.2d 720

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Patricia LEWIS, mother and next friend of Davin Lewis,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health and Human Services,
Defendant-Appellee.

No. 91-1177.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 3, 1992.
Decided Feb. 11, 1992.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Chief District Judge. (CA-90-492-R).

Patricia Lewis, appellant pro se.

Charlotte Jefferson Hardnett, Lori Riye Karimoto, United States Department of Health & Human Services, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.

W.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before WIDENER, HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Patricia Lewis noted this appeal outside the sixty-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 thirty-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 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.