Dennis Ray Kidd, Petitioner-appellant, v. Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-appellee, 922 F.2d 835 (4th Cir. 1991)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 922 F.2d 835 (4th Cir. 1991) Submitted Aug. 31, 1989. Decided Jan. 2, 1991

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-88-69-AM)

Dennis Ray Kidd, appellant pro se.

Frank Snead Ferguson, Office of the Attorney General, Richmond, Va., for appellee.

E.D. Va.

DISMISSED.

Before MURNAGHAN and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:


Dennis Ray Kidd, a Virginia prisoner, noted this appeal outside the 30-day period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) (1) and failed to move for an extension of the appeal period within the additional 30-day period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) (5).*  The time periods established by Fed.R.App. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider this case. Washington v. Bumgarner, 882 F.2d 899 (4th Cir. 1989). We therefore deny a certificate of probable cause and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and oral argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

 *

The last day for filing an appeal in this case was March 1. Because nothing in the record suggests that Kidd gave his notice of appeal to prison authorities by that date, we decline to remand for findings concerning whether Kidd's filing was timely under Houston v. Lack, --- U.S. ----, 56 U.S.L.W. 4728 (U.S. June 24, 1988) (No. 87-5428)

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.