Gerald Henneghan v. Signet Construction Company, LLC

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2176
GERALD HENNEGHAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SIGNET CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC; SIGNET REALTY – BEALMONT
8&9, LLC; CH BUILDERS LLC; LOUIS J. CLEMENTE; MARK A. HIGGS;
JOHNNY D. MOSELEY; MARK A. BLANCHIETTI HOLLANDER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:06-cv-01443-LMB-BRP)
Submitted: April 24, 2009 Decided: June 17, 2009
Before MICHAEL, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Gerald Henneghan, Appellant Pro Se. Lauri E. Cleary, LERCH,
EARLY & BREWER, CHARTERED, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Gerald Henneghan appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing his civil action and denying his motions to vacate,
for appointment of counsel, and for leave to file an amended
complaint. We dismiss Henneghan’s appeal of two 2007 orders
dismissing his civil action for lack of jurisdiction because the
notice of appeal was not timely filed. We affirm the district
court’s denial of Henneghan’s remaining motions.
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). This appeal period
is “‘mandatory and jurisdictional.’” 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 this case, the district court attempted to reopen
the appeal period. However, all the conditions set forth in
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) were not satisfied, in that the district
court made no finding as to prejudice, and Henneghan’s motion
was filed well beyond the 180-day time period. Thus, the
district court lacked jurisdiction to reopen the appeal period
and Henneghan’s appeal of the 2007 orders dismissing his civil
action must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Regarding the motion to vacate, motion for appointment
of counsel, and motion for leave to file an amended lawsuit out
of time, Henneghan failed to challenge the district court’s
reasons supporting the denial of relief. Accordingly, Henneghan
has forfeited appellate review of those issues. See Edwards v.
City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss Henneghan’s
appeal of the dismissal of his civil action. We affirm the
district court’s denial of Henneghan’s remaining motions. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --