Moore v. St. Louis Music Supply Co., Inc., 75-1787.
| Decision Date | 28 November 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-1787.,75-1787. |
| Citation | 526 F.2d 801 |
| Parties | Raymond MOORE, Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS MUSIC SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Elbert Dorsey, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Frank Hamsher, St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Before HEANEY, BRIGHT and ROSS, Circuit Judges.
St. Louis Music Supply Company moves this Court to dismiss the appeal of Raymond Moore for failure of the appellant to timely file his notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a). We deny the appellee's motion but, nevertheless, dismiss the appeal without prejudice for failure of the District Court to enter judgment on a separate document pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
On July 23, 1975, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed the appellant's suit for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On July 31, 1975, the appellant filed a motion styled "Motion to Reconsider the Order of Dismissal" which was denied by order entered August 15, 1975. The appellant filed his notice of appeal on September 4, 1975.
It is the contention of the appellee that the running of the time for appeal began on the entry of the Order of Dismissal, making the notice of appeal untimely within the thirty-day rule of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a). That rule provides, however, that a timely motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) terminates the running of the time for appeal. The appellant's Motion to Reconsider the Order of Dismissal was such a motion. See Ellis v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 720, 721 (5th Cir. 1973) (per curiam); Hicklin v. Edwards, 222 F.2d 921, 922 (8th Cir. 1955) (per curiam); 9 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 204.121 (1973). The denial of the motion to reconsider being on August 15, 1975, the notice of appeal filed September 4, 1975, was timely.
The District Court has not, however, entered judgment on a separate document as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. The instant appeal is thus premature. McDonald v. Yellow Freight System, No. 75-8176 (8th Cir. November 4, 1975); Baity v. Ciccone, 507 F.2d 717, 718 (8th Cir. 1974). Lacking jurisdiction to entertain the instant cause, it is dismissed without prejudice to the taking of an appeal upon the District Court's entry of judgment on a separate document.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quartana v. Utterback
...School of Medicine, 545 F.2d 1147 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 909, 97 S.Ct. 2974, 53 L.Ed.2d 1093 (1977); Moore v. St. Louis Music Supply Co., 526 F.2d 801 (8th Cir.1975). Quartana's motion to amend her complaint was such a motion; in order to grant the motion, the District Court wou......
-
Meyers v. Ace Hardware, Inc., 86-3308
...Electric Cooperative, Inc., 653 F.2d 1378 (10th Cir.1981); Dove v. Codesco, 569 F.2d 807 (4th Cir.1978); Moore v. St. Louis Music Supply Company, Inc., 526 F.2d 801 (8th Cir.1975); Sonnenblick-Goldman Corp. v. Nowalk, 420 F.2d 858 (3rd Cir.1970). Examination of the motion pending before the......
-
Dove v. Codesco
...Federal Practice and Procedure § 2817 at 110-11 (1973); and a majority of the federal courts. See, e. g., Moore v. St. Louis Music Supply Co., Inc., 526 F.2d 801 (8 Cir. 1975); Sonnenblick-Goldman Corp. v. Nowalk, 420 F.2d 858 (3 Cir. 1970); American Family Life Assurance Co. v. Planned Mar......
-
Action Elec., Inc. v. Local 292, Intern. Broth. of Elec. Workers
...as to the date on which a judgment is entered." Indrelunas, 411 U.S. at 222, 93 S.Ct. at 1565; see Moore v. St. Louis Music Supply Co., 526 F.2d 801, 802 (8th Cir.1975). Accordingly, the September 10, 1985 order granting summary judgment is not yet final. See Moore, 526 F.2d at 802. While t......