Taylor v. Foster ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-60873
    Conference Calendar
    CHARLIE TAYLOR,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    BETTY FOSTER; WALTER BOOKER; W.L. HOLMAN,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Mississippi
    USDC No. 4:00-CV-168-P
    --------------------
    April 10, 2001
    Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Charlie Taylor, Mississippi prisoner # R6798, appeals the
    district court’s dismissal of his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     complaint.
    Taylor’s notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after
    the district court entered its first judgment of dismissal and
    more than thirty days following the denial of Taylor’s first
    motion for reconsideration.   It was, therefore, untimely and we
    are without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.       See FED. R.
    APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A); Robbins v. Maggio, 
    750 F.2d 405
    , 408 (5th
    Cir. 1985).    Taylor’s first post-judgment motion did not suspend
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
    except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
    R. 47.5.4.
    No. 00-60873
    -2-
    the time for filing the notice of appeal as it was filed more
    than ten days following entry of judgment.   See FED. R. APP. P.
    4(a)(4)(A); Hamilton Plaintiffs v. Williams Plaintiffs, 
    147 F.3d 367
    , 371 n.10 (5th Cir. 1998).
    Although Taylor filed a second motion for reconsideration to
    which he attached additional evidence, it does not appear that
    the notice of appeal references the denial of this motion.    Even
    if the notice of appeal is construed as being from the second
    motion, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
    denying it.   The evidence shows that Taylor did not complete the
    third step of the Administrative Remedy Program because he failed
    to submit the required form; thus, he did not exhaust his
    administrative remedies.
    For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS the appeal for lack of
    jurisdiction with respect to the underlying judgment and the
    denial of the first motion for reconsideration.    We AFFIRM the
    denial of the second motion for reconsideration.    We DENY as moot
    Taylor’s request to obtain a copy of certain correspondence, his
    motions to supplement the record, and his motion to obtain a copy
    of the district court record.
    DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION; AFFIRMED IN
    PART; MOTIONS DENIED AS MOOT.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-60873

Filed Date: 4/10/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014