Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. William James Fisher, and 20.49 Acres of Land, More or Less, in Township 5, Craven County, North Carolina James Edward Hayes William Earl Fisher Edna Fisher Mary Lofton Leroy Fisher Carl Willoughby Lebra Fisher, A/K/A Leabert Winford Lee Morgan, Sr. Moddie Fisher Craven County, North Carolina Parties Unknown v. Mary Willoughby Clark
Citations: 14 F.3d 597; 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 37092; 1993 WL 525492Docket: 92-1754
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; December 16, 1993; Federal Appellate Court
William James Fisher's appeal was dismissed by the Fourth Circuit Court due to his failure to file a timely notice of appeal. Fisher noted the appeal outside the sixty-day period mandated by Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)) and did not seek an extension within the additional thirty-day allowance (Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)). The court emphasized that the time limits for appeals are "mandatory and jurisdictional," referencing Browder v. Director, Department of Corrections, which establishes that a failure to comply deprives the court of jurisdiction. The court noted that Fisher's notice of appeal was initially filed before a final judgment was entered, but the subsequent final judgment rendered the order "final" under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, correcting any premature appeal issues. However, since Fisher's notice was still filed more than sixty days after the entry of the initial order and he did not file a motion for an extension, the appeal was deemed untimely. The court concluded that a bare notice of appeal does not constitute a request for an extension. Oral arguments were deemed unnecessary as the facts and legal arguments were sufficiently presented in the existing materials. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.