Ruck v. Tavenner , 194 Fed. Appx. 96 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-1554
    LANCE E. RUCK; ROBERT A. CUSHING, JR.,
    Creditors - Appellants,
    and
    KENNETH R. SMOOT,
    Creditor,
    versus
    LYNN LEWIS TAVENNER, Trustee,
    Trustee - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.     James R. Spencer, Chief
    District Judge. (3:05-cv-00482-JRS; BK-98-39531-DOT)
    Submitted:   July 26, 2006                 Decided:   August 10, 2006
    Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Lance E. Ruck, Robert A. Cushing, Jr., Appellants Pro Se.
    Christopher Abram Jones, LECLAIR RYAN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    - 2 -
    PER CURIAM:
    Lance E. Ruck and Robert A. Cushing, Jr., seek to appeal
    the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order
    denying their motion for payment of administrative expenses.                    We
    dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of
    appeal was not timely filed.
    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)).
    The district court’s order was entered on the docket on
    March 30, 2006.        The notice of appeal was filed on May 4, 2006.
    Because Ruck and Cushing failed to file a timely notice of appeal
    or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
    dismiss the appeal.           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.
    DISMISSED
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-1554

Citation Numbers: 194 F. App'x 96, 194 Fed. Appx. 96, 194 F. App’x 96, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 20628, 2006 WL 2326890

Judges: Wilkinson, Michael, Hamilton

Filed Date: 8/10/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024