Ernest L. Hines, Plaintiff-appellant, v. J. A. Powell; John H. Baker; Zesely Haislip, Defendants-appellees.ernest L. Hines, Plaintiff-appellant, v. J. A. Powell, Deputy; John H. Baker, Sheriff; Zeselyhaislip, District Attorney, Defendants-appellees.ernest L. Hines, Plaintiff-appellant, v. George E. Kelly, Iii; Zesely Haislip, Defendants-appellees, 972 F.2d 340 (4th Cir. 1992)
Annotate this CaseAppeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge; W. Earl Britt, Malcolm J. Howard, District Judges. (CA-91-578-CRT, CA-91-635-CRT-BR, CA-91-675-CRT-H)
Ernest L. Hines, Appellant Pro Se.
E.D.N.C.
Dismissed.
Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Ernest L. Hines noted these appeals outside the 30-day appeal period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) (1), and failed to move for extensions 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. P. 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 timely appeals or obtain extensions of the appeal period deprives this Court of jurisdiction to consider these cases. We therefore dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively.
DISMISSED
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.
