Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01196/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01196-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JAMES A. BLOCK, } 

} 

Plaintiff-Appellant, } 

} 

. FILED 

Un,rrd Srores Court of Ap 15 'ropt- ~1 r; .. ,.,,;,. pea ... .. .. ·~ .. ' . 

FEB 9 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

V • } 

} 

AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH} 

No. 89-1196 

(D.C. No. 89-M-230} 

(D. Colo.} 

COMPANY, COMMUNICATIONS } 

WORKERS OF AMERICA, INTER- } 

NATIONAL (affiliated with AFL-} 

CIO, CLC), and COMMUNICATIONS} 

WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 7750} 

(affiliated with AFL-CIO), } 

} 

Defendants-Appellees. } 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a}; 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

James A. Block appeals from the order of the district court 

dismissing his action with prejudice. American Telephone and 

Telegraph Company, Communications Workers of America, 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-1196 Document: 01019963026 Date Filed: 02/09/1990 Page: 1 
International, and Communications Workers of America, Local 7750 

object to the jurisdiction of this court, claiming the notice of 

appeal is untimely. We agree and dismiss. 

Block's appeal is untimely. The order dismissing Block's 

action was filed May 12, 1989. The time in which an appeal could 

be taken expired on June 12, 1989. Block's letter, deemed a 

notice of appeal, was filed June 22, 1989. The notice of appeal 

was thus untimely. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(l). Block then sought 

an extension of time in which to appeal on August 2, 1989. 

Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5), however, requires motions for extension of 

time in which to appeal to be filed within thirty days after the 

expiration of the time prescribed~ Rule~, which in this case 

was thirty days ending on June 12, 1989. The time for filing an 

extension thus expired on July 13, 1989. Block's motion to extend 

the time in which to appeal was thus untimely. The filing 

requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional, see Browder~ 

Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978), and may 

not be waived even for "good cause." See Torres v. Oakland 

Scavenger Co., --- U.S. ---, 108 s. Ct. 2405, 2409 (1988). 

Because no timely notice of appeal was filed, we lack 

jurisdiction. 

Appeal DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

2 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-1196 Document: 01019963026 Date Filed: 02/09/1990 Page: 2