Timothy Bell v. Eugene McAdory, No. 15-1036 (7th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on April 29, 2016.
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued January 21, 2016 Decided September 14, 2016 Before RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge No. 15- 1036 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. TIMOTHY BELL, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. No. 12- 3138- CSB- DGB Colin S. Bruce, Judge. EUGENE MCADORY, et al., Defendants- Appellees. Order Our opinion of last April directed the district court to treat post- judgment papers that Timothy Bell had filed there as a motion under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) for additional time to appeal. The district judge now has done so and, in an order dated September 6, has found that Bell lacks excusable neglect or good cause for not filing a timely appeal. No. 15- 1036 Page 2 Our review of such a decision is deferential, see Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates LP, 507 U.S. 380 (1993), and we do not see any problem in the district court’s disposition. The judge stressed that his order on the merits had itself informed Bell that he must appeal within 30 days of “the entry of judgment”, so that even if imprisoned litigants are apt to misunderstand the Appellate Rules, Bell knew the deadline. His contention that another inmate had told him that time is calculated from a decision’s receipt in the prison, rather than its entry in the district court, cannot justify disregarding information provided directly by the court. Bell’s delay therefore lacks a good cause and cannot be attributed “excusable” neglect. Accordingly, we dismiss Bell’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
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.
