Green v. Evatt ( 1996 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-6968
WILLIAM GREEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PARKER EVATT; LAURIE BESSINGER, Warden; NANCY
GLENN; CHARLES MOORE; JUDY JOHNSON; T. MURRAY,
Individually, and in their official
capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-94-376-3-18BC)
Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 15, 1996
Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Green, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen P. Hughes, HOWELL, GIBSON
& HUGHES, P.A., Beaufort, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting him
a thirty-day extension of time to note his appeal when he requested
a 180-day extension. We have reviewed the record and the district
court's opinion and find no abuse of discretion and no reversible
error. See Allied Steel v. Abilene, 909 F.2d 139, 142 (5th Cir.
1990). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. Green v. Evatt, No. CA-94-376-3-18BC (D.S.C. May 9, 1995).
We note that although Appellant stated his intent to appeal from
the order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint,
he limited his notice of appeal to the order denying a further
extension. Thus, this court's appellate jurisdiction is limited to
review of that order. See Gunther v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
255 F.2d 710, 717-18 (4th Cir. 1958). 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
2