The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
01-2055•Lawrence D. Morderosian v. James S. Gilmore, Iii
01-2055Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 24, 2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-2055
LAWRENCE D. MORDEROSIAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JAMES S. GILMORE, III,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-00-1163-A)
Submitted: January 15, 2002 Decided: January 24, 2002
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence D. Morderosian, Appellant Pro Se. Alice Ann Berkebile,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence D. Morderosian seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion for extension of time to appeal its dis-
missal of his civil action. The district court entered an order on
July 16, 2001 granting Morderosian thirty days in which to appeal
its April 30, 2001 order denying him an extension of time to
appeal. The court later emphasized in a July 31, 2001 order that
Morderosian had until August 15, 2001 to note his appeal. We
conclude the district court was without jurisdiction to so extend
the appeal period because more than sixty days had lapsed since the
April 30, 2001 order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(c). In any
event, Morderosian’s notice of appeal was not filed until August
17, 2001.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
We deny Morderosian’s motion for 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.