Arthur R. Cooper, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Charlotte Wheeler; Edward K. Wheeler, Defendants-appellants, 986 F.2d 1413 (4th Cir. 1993)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 986 F.2d 1413 (4th Cir. 1993) Submitted: November 23, 1992Decided: March 2, 1993

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic W. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-90-2518-S)

Edward Kendall Wheeler, WHEELER & WHEELER, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.

John Lynam Dowling, REGAN ASSOCIATES CHARTERED, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

D. Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before HALL and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:


OPINION

Charlotte Wheeler and Edward K. Wheeler noted their appeal from the magistrate judge's final judgment and order in their civil action to the district court1  outside the thirty-day appeal period established by Fed. R. Civ. P. 74(a), and failed to move for an extension of the appeal period within the additional twenty-day period provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 74(a).2  The time periods established by Fed. R. Civ. P. 74(a) are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Keller v. Petsock, 849 F.2d 839, 843 (3d Cir. 1988). Therefore, the district court dismissed the appeal and the Wheelers appealed to this Court. Appellants' failure to note a timely appeal to the district court or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprived the district court of jurisdiction to consider the case. We therefore affirm the district court. We deny Cooper's motion to dismiss this appeal. See Adams v. Heckler, 794 F.2d 303 (7th Cir. 1986). 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.

AFFIRMED

 1

The parties agreed to proceed before a magistrate judge and to appeal directly to a district judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.s 636(c) (1988)

 2

The Wheelers moved for an extension of the appeal period after the twenty-day period expired

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.