Opinion

Brown v. Louisiana Correctional Services

  • 333 F. App'x 876
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Filed
Oct 16, 2009
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Jolly, Wiener, Elrod
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 65.8%

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 15, 2009

No. 08-20421

Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

ROY A BROWN, also known as John Doe

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

LOUISIANA CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; DOCTOR JOSE LOZANO;

BURENO, Nurse; BAXTER INTERNATIONAL

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:08-CV-823

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roy A. Brown, federal prisoner # 31532-179, appeals the dismissal as

frivolous his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 law suit alleging the denial of adequate medical

care. This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction sua sponte if

necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). A timely notice

of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional in a civil case. Bowles v. Russell, 551

U.S. 205, 207-13 (2007). The notice of appeal in a civil action must be filed

*

Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .

R. 47.5.4.

No. 08-20421

within 30 days of entry of the judgment or order from which the appeal is taken.

28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); F ED. R. A PP. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Brown filed his notice of appeal

more than 30 days after the order dismissing his case was entered.

This court previously construed Brown’s notice of appeal as a motion to

reopen the appeal period under F ED. R. A PP. P. 4(a)(6), and remanded the case

to make findings on the circumstances surrounding the notice of the district

court’s judgment and when he mailed his notice of appeal. The district court

complied with the court’s remand order but did not rule on whether Brown’s

appeal should be reopened pursuant to Rule 4(a)(6). We hereby remand this

case to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether Brown’s

appeal should be reopened pursuant to Rule 4(a)(6). The district court is

directed to return the case to this court for further proceedings or dismissal, as

appropriate, once the ruling has been made.

LIMITED REMAND.

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.