United States Sixth Circuit

District court's denial of plaintiff's motion for a filing extension, holding that it had no authority to grant filing extension once the Rule 4 deadline had expired is affirmed as, in light of the precedent in the Supreme Court's holding in Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205(2007) that a petitioner's failure to file notice of appeal in accordance with the statute deprives the court of appeals of jurisdiction, the district court did not err in holding it lacked authority to grant the plaintiff's untimely motion.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/01/2010
• Published 04/01/2010

Judges

• Before COLE, GILMAN, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ON BRIEF:Joel Levin, Aparesh Paul, Levin & Associates Co., L.P.A., Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Marvin L. Karp, Ulmer & Berne LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellees.