Lewis v. Sallie Mae Corp, No. 06-2185 (4th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2185 MORRIS E. LEWIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SALLIE MAE CORPORATION Unnamed Defendants, (SLM), and Other Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:06-mc-00041-LMB) Submitted: February 15, 2007 Decided: February 20, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Morris E. Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Paul Esposito, AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Morris E. Lewis appeals the district court s order denying his motion for an extension of time in which to file a notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5).* Parties in a civil action in which the United States is not a party have thirty days following a final order in which to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal based upon excusable neglect under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). These time periods are mandatory and jurisdictional. Browder v. Dir., Dep t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (internal quotations and citations omitted). motion for an We review the district court s denial of a extension of time for abuse of discretion. Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 76 F.3d 530, 532 n.2 (4th Cir. 1996). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. affirm. Accordingly, we We deny Lewis Motion to Supplement Appeals File and * Although Lewis noted only the order denying an extension of time in his notice of appeal, in his informal brief he states that he is appealing the district court s orders dismissing his complaint, denying his motion to amend judgment, and denying his amended motion to amend judgment. The latest of these orders was entered on the district court s docket on August 23, 2006, and Lewis had until September 22, 2006, to file a notice of appeal. He did not file his notice of appeal until October 27, 2006. We therefore lack jurisdiction to consider his arguments related to these orders. - 2 - his Motion to Overcome Dismissal with Prejudice Orders. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 3 -
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.
