White v. Westrick, 90-5497MN
| Decision Date | 21 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-5497MN,90-5497MN |
| Parties | Shelton E. WHITE, Appellant, v. R. WESTRICK, Lynn V. Hooe, Dr. Bassignwaithe, Eric Strauss, Sarah Beth Pullium, Joseph B. Bogan, Daryl Kosiak, Sandford Plotkin, Newton Jackson, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Shelton E. White, pro se.
Robert Small, Asst. U.S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., Timothy Murphy, and Kerry Koep, St. Paul, Minn., for appellees.
Before JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and FAGG, Circuit Judge.
Shelton E. White appeals from the dismissal of his Bivens action against various officers and agents of the United States. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Filing requirements for appeals are mandatory and jurisdictional. Hable v. Pairolero, 915 F.2d 394, 394 (8th Cir.1990). When an officer or agent of the United States is a party to a civil action, the notice of appeal must be filed within sixty days after the district court enters judgment. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1). White, however, filed his notice of appeal seventy days after judgment was entered. White did not file a motion to extend the time for filing his notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5), and the district court's filing of a nunc pro tunc order fourteen days after judgment was entered correcting the spelling of one defendant's name in the judgment did not initiate a new period for filing the notice of appeal under rule 4(a)(4)(iii), see United States v. Geophysical Corp., 732 F.2d 693, 701 (9th Cir.1984) (); St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 684 F.2d 691, 693 (10th Cir.1982) (same); see also United States v. 1431.80 Acres of Land, 466 F.2d 820, 822 (8th Cir.1972) (per curiam). Additionally, a nunc pro tunc order making a technical correction in a judgment is not a unique circumstance justifying enlargement of the time period for filing an appeal. See Hable, 915 F.2d at 395. Thus, White filed an untimely notice of appeal, and we do not have appellate jurisdiction. Id.
Accordingly, we dismiss White's appeal.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Gilvie v. U.S.
...error in the first judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a), and thus the time to appeal ran from November 30, 1993. See White v. Westrick, 921 F.2d 784 (8th Cir.1990). However, a careful reading of all of the memoranda, orders, and "judgments" entered in this case indicates that the October 27 or......
-
New Jersey Payphone v. Town of West New York
...not toll the time within which review must be sought"); Gillis v. Hoechst Celanese Corp., 4 F.3d 1137 (3d Cir.1993); White v. Westrick, 921 F.2d 784 (8th Cir. 1990) (holding that the correction of the spelling of a party's name did not toll the deadline for filing an appeal). Because in New......
-
Farkas v. Rumore
...Precision Valley Aviation, Inc., 26 F.3d 220, 223-26 (1st Cir.1994); United States v. Lewis, 921 F.2d 563 (5th Cir.1991); White v. Westrick, 921 F.2d 784 (8th Cir.1990). Similarly, where an order disposes of a party's substantive claims, but does not dispose of claims relating to attorney's......
-
Internet Fin. Servs. v. Law Firm of Larson-Jackson, CIV.A. 02-1207 RMC.
...Inc. v. Republic Underwriters Ins. Co., 910 F.2d 224 (5th Cir.1990); Farkas v. Rumore, 101 F.3d 20 (2d Cir.1996); and White v. Westrick, 921 F.2d 784 (8th Cir.1990)). While a motion that seeks to change the substance of a court judgment may be considered a motion to amend or correct under R......