Robbie Sherron v. Butch Jackson, No. 08-7995 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7995 ROBBIE SHERRON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BUTCH JACKSON; MARY A. WILLINGHAM; F. HANS, Nurse; LINDA PADGETT; DONALD V. MICLOS; MICHAEL BELL, Defendants Appellees, and NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CURTIS CLIFFORD, Dr.; DAVID M. HINDS; NURSE HAWNS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:06-ct-03089-D) Submitted: March 31, 2009 Decided: April 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robbie Sherron, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth F. Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Robbie Sherron seeks to appeal the district court s order granting partial summary denying Sherron s motion hearing pursuant to to Fed. judgment compel R. Civ. for Defendants discovery, P. motion 26(f), and for motions a for preliminary injunctions, and motions for temporary restraining orders. Sherron also seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his motion for appointment of counsel. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). the portion of the order denying With the exception of Sherron s motions for preliminary injunctions, the orders Sherron seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. The however, an order denying appealable § 1292(a)(1). a preliminary interlocutory order. injunction See 18 is, U.S.C. However, Sherron failed to file a timely notice of appeal of this order. Parties in a civil case in which the United States is not a party have thirty days following entry of a final order in which to file a notice of appeal. P. 4(a)(1)(a). Fed. R. App. Upon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause the district court may extend this period up to thirty 3 days beyond the original appeal period, or reopen the appeal period upon a party s motion. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), (6). These time periods are mandatory and jurisdictional. Russell, 557 U.S. 205, ___, 127 S. Ct. 2360, Bowles v. 2365 (2007); Browder v. Dir., Dep t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978). The order denying Sherron s motions for preliminary injunctions was entered on August 4, 2008, and Sherron did not file his notice of appeal until, at the earliest, September 6, 2008, three days beyond the expiration of the thirty-day appeal period. * Therefore, Sherron s notice of appeal was untimely. Accordingly, jurisdiction. we dismiss the appeal for lack of We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED * See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). 4
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.
