Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-06170/USCOURTS-ca10-15-06170-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Monte Diamond Gaines
Appellant
Justin Jones
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

MONTE DIAMOND GAINES, 

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JUSTIN JONES, 

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 15-6170

(D.C. No. 5:12-CV-00083-HE)

(W.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, HOLMES, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Pro se plaintiff Monte Diamond Gaines appeals the district court’s order and 

separate judgment adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying his 

§2254 petition. The notice of appeal was filed long after the filing deadline passed, 

however. Consequently, we conclude that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the 

appeal.

“A timely notice of appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional.” Allender v. 

Raytheon Aircraft Co., 439 F.3d 1236, 1239 (10th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). In a 

civil case, a notice of appeal “must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after the 

judgment or order appealed from is entered.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Although Mr. 

Gaines is proceeding pro se, he still must comply with the time requirements in the 

procedural rules. Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994).

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

September 8, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-6170 Document: 01019487311 Date Filed: 09/08/2015 Page: 1 
2

In this case, the district court’s final judgment was entered January 14, 2014. To 

be timely, the notice of appeal must have been filed by February 13, 2014. Mr. Gaines 

did not file the notice of appeal until August 31, 2015, more than 18 months after the 

deadline to file the notice of appeal passed. Mr. Gaines did not seek relief from the late 

filing, nor could he obtain it at this time, from the district court. See Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(6). And the United States Supreme Court has made clear that federal courts “ha[ve] 

no authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements.” Bowles v. 

Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Therefore, “[t]he time limit has run and we are 

without jurisdiction under the facts of this case.” Jenkins v. Burtzloff, 69 F.2d 460, 464 

(10th Cir. 1995).

In the alternative, we note that Mr. Gaines did not file an objection to the 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation entered September 12, 2013, which serves 

as an independent ground for dismissing this appeal. Failure to file specific, written 

objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation generally results in a waiver of 

appellate review of the district court’s order adopting the recommendation. See Moore v. 

United States, 940 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-6170 Document: 01019487311 Date Filed: 09/08/2015 Page: 2