Louisiana Place Associates, LL v. Mark Stroupe, No. 08-1512 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1512 LOUISIANA PLACE ASSOCIATES, LLC; WOOD ROBERTS, LLC; ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SANTA ROSA CALIFORNIA, THE; TINY LITTLE INVESTMENT CLUB; BRISTOL AIR INC., Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. MARK ANTHONY STROUPE, d/b/a Practical Holdings Limited, Defendant - Appellant, and PRACTICAL HOLDINGS LIMITED; SUSIE ELAINE STROUPE; FIRST SPRINGFIELD, First Springfield Securities Inc.; FIRST SPRINGFIELD, First Springfield Securities Limited; DONALD E. RADLE; GEORGE J. DAVIS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:99-cv-00586-DCN) Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 23, 2008 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Anthony Stroupe, Appellant Pro Se. William C. Cleveland, III, BUIST, MOORE, SMYTHE, MCGEE, PA, Charleston, South Carolina; Thomas Stuart White, HAYNSWORTH, SINKLER & BOYD, PA, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Mark Anthony Stroupe seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying his motion requesting an order to show cause as to why the Plaintiffs should not be held in contempt of court and his reconsideration motion for thereof. relief We from dismiss judgment, the appeal and for denying lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 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). ยง 2107 (2000). jurisdictional. This appeal period is See 28 U.S.C. mandatory and Browder v. Dir., Dep t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Accord Bowles v. Russell, 127 S. Ct. 2360 (2007). The district court s order denying reconsideration was entered on October 25, 2007. 1 The notice of appeal was filed on 1 The district court s order denying the motion for a show cause order and the motion for relief from judgment was entered on October 12, 2007. Stroupe timely filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration, which was denied on October 25, 2007. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A), the thirty day appeal period runs from the date of entry of the order denying the Rule 59(e) motion. 3 April 24, 2008. 2 Because Stroupe failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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. DISMISSED 2 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (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.
