Walkup v. Carpenter ( 1994 )


Menu:
  • USCA1 Opinion









    January 27, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


    ___________________


    No. 93-1749




    GERALDINE MARIE WALKUP,

    Plaintiff, Appellant,

    v.

    M. ELLEN CARPENTER,

    Defendant, Appellee.

    __________________

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

    [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
    ___________________

    ___________________

    Before

    Breyer, Chief Judge,
    ___________
    Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
    ______________

    ___________________

    Geraldine Marie Walkup on brief pro se.
    ______________________
    M. Ellen Carpenter, Leila R. Kern, and Kern, Hagerty, Roach
    __________________ _____________ ____________________
    & Carpenter, P.C. on brief for appellee.
    _________________



    __________________

    __________________



















    Per Curiam. This case is before us on appeal from
    __________

    an order of the United States District Court for the District

    of Massachusetts affirming a decision of the bankruptcy court

    allowing a motion to sell property. The bankruptcy court

    order was entered on the docket sheet on January 14, 1993.

    Appellant Walkup did not file her notice of appeal until

    February 17, 1993, twenty-three days after the ten day period

    for filing a notice of appeal had expired. See Bankruptcy
    ___

    Rule 8002(a). Timely filing of a notice of appeal pursuant

    to Rule 8002 is mandatory and jurisdictional. In re
    ______

    Abdallah, 778 F.2d 75, 77 (1st Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476
    ________ ____________

    U.S. 1116 (1986). Accordingly, the untimely notice of appeal

    deprived the district court of jurisdiction to review the

    bankruptcy court order. Furthermore, we lack jurisdiction to

    review the issues on appeal, since our jurisdiction to do so

    is dependent upon a proper exercise of jurisdiction below.

    Id.
    __

    The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

    The order of the district court is hereby vacated, and the

    case is remanded so that the district court may enter an

    order dismissing the appeal.











    -2-







Document Info

Docket Number: 93-1749

Filed Date: 1/27/1994

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/21/2015