LAW.coLAW.co

VAUGHN v. GELSINGER II II II II (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.2021-08-27No. No. 21-6367

Summary

Holding. The court dismissed Vaughn's appeal as both duplicative and untimely, since he had previously appealed the same order and his new notice of appeal exceeded the thirty-day filing deadline.

Donald Vaughn attempted to appeal a district court order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants in his civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, Vaughn had already appealed this same order in a previous proceeding, which the court had dismissed. Additionally, his current notice of appeal was filed substantially after the thirty-day deadline for filing appeals in civil cases.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Duplicative appeals of the same order
  • Timeliness of notice of appeal
  • Jurisdictional requirements for federal appellate review

Procedural posture

Vaughn appealed a November 2019 district court order granting summary judgment, but had previously filed and had dismissed a prior appeal of the identical order.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

Donald Vaughn seeks to appeal the district courts November 2019 order granting Defendants summary judgment in Vaughns 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. However, Vaughn previously appealed this order, and we dismissed that appeal. See Vaughn v. Gelsinger, 806 F. Appx 225 (4th Cir. 2020). Because we have previously dismissed an appeal of the appealed-from order, and since Vaughns most recent notice of appeal was filed well beyond the 30-day appeal period, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (providing that, in civil cases in which the United States is a not party, parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district courts final judgment or order to note an appeal), we dismiss this appeal as duplicative and untimely. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

DISMISSED

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.