Court Opinion

ID: 489654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-08-23 09:50:17+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:25.521400
License: Public Domain

820 F.2d 1220Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.Robert Walter WOLTZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.John WILT, Warden, B.B.C.F.;  Mr. Paris, ClassificationOfficer, B.B.C.F.;  Mr. Langford, Co.O, B.B.C.F.;  Dr.Deshay M.D., MHC;  Major Kelly, B.B.C.F.;  Donald S.Morrison, R.N., B.B.C.F.;  Captain Heard, C.O., B.B.C.F.;Hank Musk, Ph.D., DOC;  Mr. Epps, C.O.;  Mr. Williams, P.A.,B.B.C.F.;  Sgt. McElroy, C.O., B.B.C.F.;  Sgt. Lilly, C.O.,B.B.C.F.;  Lt. White, C.O., B.B.C.F.;  Lt. Bishop, C.O.,B.B.C.F.;  Officer Neal, C.O., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 87-7007.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 27, 1987.Decided June 8, 1987.

Before HALL, PHILLIPS and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.
Robert Walter Woltz, appellant pro se.
Richard M. Kastendieck, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, for appellees.
PER CURIAM:

1
Robert W. Woltz appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action.  Judgment was entered against Woltz on May 22, 1986, and he had until June 23, 1986, to note his appeal or until July 23, 1986, to request an extension of time.  See Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1), (5).  Woltz corresponded with the court on August 29, 1986;  he then filed his notice of appeal on September 29, 1986.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss Woltz's appeal as untimely.

2
This Court has no jurisdiction over untimely appeals.   See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 61 (1982).  While there may have been some mix-up as to Woltz's address, failure to receive notice of entry of judgment will not affect the time to appeal or relieve the party of failure to appeal within the time allowed.   See Hensley v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co., 651 F.2d 226, 228-29 (4th Cir.1981);  Fed.R.Civ.P. 77(d).  Thus, we grant appellees' motion to dismiss Woltz's appeal.  Because the dispositive issues have recently been authoritatively decided, we dispense with oral argument.

3
DISMISSED.