In Re: Joseph Marion Head, Jr., Petitioner-appellant.in Re: Joseph Marion Head, Jr., Petitioner-appellant, 996 F.2d 1211 (4th Cir. 1993)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 996 F.2d 1211 (4th Cir. 1993) Submitted: June 7, 1993. Decided: June 23, 1993

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge. (CA-93-16-4)

Joseph Marion Head, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

W.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED IN NO. 93-6201 AND DISMISSED IN NO. 93-6202.

Before HALL, WILKINSON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:


In No. 93-6201, Joseph Marion Head, Jr., appeals from the district court's order dismissing Head's fifty-seven pleadings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. In re: Joseph Marion Head, Jr., No. CA-93-16-4 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 1, 1993).

In No. 93-6202, Head noted the appeal outside the thirty-day appeal period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) (1), and failed to move for an extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-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 a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives this Court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore dismiss the appeal.

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. The motions for appointment of counsel and for oral argument are denied.

No. 93-6201, AFFIRMED No. 93-6202, 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.