Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03386/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03386-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3386

___________

Richard Allen Schmidt, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Mike Kenney; Larry Wayne; Harold * District of Nebraska.

Clarke; Sharon Lindgren; Jeff Uttecht; *

Mousa Drammeh; Scott Hooper; John * [UNPUBLISHED]

Munoz; Mike Salomons; Rex Richard; *

Kyle Poppert; Larinda Parker; Georgia *

Oehlert; Ron Limbeck; Candace Hanes; *

Jane Grabenstein-Chandler; Cheryl *

Flinn; Donn Beaver, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: September 15, 2004

Filed: September 20, 2004 

___________

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Former Nebraska inmate Richard A. Schmidt seeks to appeal from the district

court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which he claimed deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs. Having carefully reviewed the record, we

Appellate Case: 03-3386 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/20/2004 Entry ID: 1812854 
-2-

dismiss the appeal as untimely. See Krein v. Norris, 250 F.3d 1184, 1187 (8th Cir.

2001) (jurisdiction will be raised sua sponte when there is indication it is lacking,

even if parties concede issue).

Schmidt did not timely file his notice of appeal (NOA), because he filed it 47

days after the district court entered judgment, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) (in civil case

where agency of United States is not party, NOA must be filed within 30 days of

district court’s entry of judgment); and the district court had no authority to extend

the NOA filing deadline absent a motion by Schmidt, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)

(district court may extend time to file NOA based on excusable neglect or good cause

“upon motion filed” no later than 30 days after deadline for filing NOA); Campbell

v. White, 721 F.2d 644, 645 (8th Cir. 1983) (Rule 4(a)(5) clearly and unambiguously

requires motion, and late-filed NOA may not be considered extension motion).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Burgs v. Johnson County, Iowa, 79

F.3d 701, 702 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (timely NOA is jurisdictional).

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3386 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/20/2004 Entry ID: 1812854