# Brown v. Louisiana Correctional Services

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · October 16, 2009 · 333 F. App'x 876

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/68686

## Case

- **Full name:** Roy A. BROWN, Also Known as John Doe, Plaintiff-Appellant v. LOUISIANA CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; Doctor Jose Lozano; Bureno, Nurse; Baxter International, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 16, 2009
- **Citations:** 333 F. App'x 876
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Jolly, Wiener, Elrod
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/68686

## Opinion text

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/68686. Public record. Not legal advice.