Pack v. Benjamin, No. 07-1856 (4th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1856 MICHAEL L. PACK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES R. BENJAMIN, JR., Defendant - Appellee. No. 07-1890 MICHAEL L. PACK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARSDEN, BOTARIS & SELEDEE, Defendant - Appellee. No. 07-1928 MICHAEL L. PACK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BANK OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz; Catherine C. Blake, District Judges. (1:07-cv-00715-JFM; 1:07-cv-02057-CCB; 1:07-cv02058-JFM) Submitted: October 24, 2007 Decided: November 26, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael L. Pack, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Michael L. Pack appeals district court orders summarily dismissing his complaints. In No. 07-1856, Pack has filed an untimely notice of appeal and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In Nos. 07-1890 and 07-1928, we dismiss the appeals as frivolous. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court s final judgment or order to note an 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). and jurisdictional. This appeal period is mandatory Browder v. Dir., Dep t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). In No. 07-1856, the district court s order was entered on the docket on March 28, 2007. August 30, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on Because Pack failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. In Nos. 07-1890 and 07-1928, the district court dismissed without prejudice Pack s complaints for failing to state a claim. We agree with the reasoning of the district court and dismiss the appeals as frivolous. See Pack v. Marsden, Botaris & Seledee, No. - 3 - 1:07-cv-02057-CCB (D. Md. Sept. 6, 2007); Pack v. Bank of America, No. 1:07-cv-02058-JFM (D. Md. Sept. 11, 2007). Accordingly, we dismiss No. 07-1856 for lack of jurisdiction and dismiss as frivolous Nos. 07-1890 and 07-1928. We warn Pack that if he continues to abuse the judicial system by filing frivolous appeals, we will consider enjoining Pack from filing any other appeals without first getting leave from the district court that the appeal is not frivolous. We dispense with oral contentions argument because the facts and legal are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 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.
