Daniel Lanahan v. Clifton Perkins Hospital Center, No. 16-6948 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 30, 2016.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6948 DANIEL THOMAS LANAHAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CLIFTON T. PERKINS HOSPITAL DR. KOWAN; DR. DOCTOR HELSEL, CENTER; DR. KHLID EL SAYED; Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-02512-JFM) Submitted: February 13, 2017 Decided: March 14, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel Thomas Lanahan, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daniel Thomas Lanahan seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition without prejudice for lack of exhaustion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties district are court’s accorded final 30 days judgment or after order the to entry note of an the appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “Lack of notice of the entry does not affect the time for appeal or relieve or authorize the court to relieve a party for failing to appeal within the time allowed, except as allowed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure (4)(a).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 77(d)(2). Rule 4(a)(6) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure permits the reopening of the appeal period if a party has not received notice of the judgment or order within 21 days after entry, but the motion requesting such relief must be filed within 180 days after entry of the judgment or 14 days after the party received notice of the judgment or order, whichever is earlier. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time requirements of Rule 4(a) are mandatory and jurisdictional. 551 U.S. 205, 208-14 (2007). 2 Bowles v. Russell, The district court’s order was entered on the docket on October 30, 2015. Lanahan’s notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on July 1, 2016. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926-27 (9th Cir. 2004). the appeal period. Lanahan never moved for an extension of Additionally, the 180-day reopening period expired well before Lanahan filed his notice of appeal. Thus, Lanahan is not eligible for a reopening of the appeal period. See Nunley v. City of Los Angeles, 52 F.3d 792, 794-95 (9th Cir. 1995); Hensley v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 651 F.2d 226, 228 (4th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Lanahan’s motion for a hearing and dispense with oral argument because the facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 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.
