United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3137

___________

L. Romeo Hardin, *

*

Appellant, *

*

Jeffrey Grafton; Saleem Hamilton; *

Maurice Campbell, *

*

Plaintiffs, *

*

v. *

*

John Mathes; William Sperflage; John *

Emmett; Clarence Raymond Petrie; *

Dave DeGrange; David Tadman; Gregg *

Colven; Joy Kuper; Mike Cutler; *

Unknown Officials; Unknown *

Officials, Unknown Officials K9; *

Debra Nichols; Lt Dan George; Mike *

Petrie; Todd Eaves; Bill Wilke, *

*

Appellees. *

___________ Appeals from the United States

Distirct Court for the Southern

No. 07-3140 District of Iowa.

___________

L. Romeo Hardin; Jeffrey Grafton, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Plaintiffs, *

*
-2-

Saleem Hamilton, *

*

Appellant, *

*

Maurice Campbell, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. *

*

John Mathes; William Sperflage; *

John Emmett; Clarence Raymond *

Petrie; Dave DeGrange; David *

Tadman; Gregg Colven; Joy Kuper; *

Mike Cutler; Unknown Officials; *

Unknown Officials, Unknown *

Officials K9; Debra Nichols; Lt Dan *

George; Mike Petrie; Todd Eaves; *

Bill Wilke, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: August 24, 2009

Filed: September 1, 2009

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
1

The Honorable Ross A. Walters, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

-3-

In these consolidated appeals, Iowa inmates L. Romeo Hardin and Saleem

Hamilton appeal the district court’s1

 entry of adverse judgment following a jury trial

in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. In No. 07-3137, we reject Hardin’s contention that

he did not waive his right to proceed before an Article III judge. The record shows

that standby counsel signed a document reflecting plaintiffs’ consent to proceed

before a magistrate judge. Further, Hardin did not identify this as an issue in his

postjudgment motions or in his document listing numerous issues for appellate review.

As to the merits, without a trial transcript we cannot review his challenges to the

district court’s evidentiary rulings. See Schmid v. United Bhd. of Carpenters &

Joiners, 827 F.2d 384, 386 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam). 

In No. 07-3140, Hamilton’s separately filed notice of appeal was untimely. See

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1),(3) (time limits for filing notice of appeal in civil case); Dieser

v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 440 F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (jurisdictional issues will be

raised sua sponte if there is indication jurisdiction is lacking; timely notice of appeal

is mandatory and jurisdictional); see also Porchia v. Norris, 251 F.3d 1196, 1198 (8th

Cir. 2001) (inmate bears burden of proving his entitlement to benefit of prison

mailbox rule); Burgs v. Johnson County, Iowa, 79 F.3d 701, 702 (8th Cir. 1996) (per

curiam) (untimely notice of appeal cannot serve as motion for extension of time to file

appeal). 

Accordingly, in Hardin’s appeal we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we also

deny his pending motion. We dismiss Hamilton’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

______________________________