Shannon Clark v. Garfield Beach CVS, LLC, et al
| SHANNON CLARK |
| GARFIELD BEACH CVS, LLC, Erroneously Sued As CVS Pharmacy Inc. and KAREN S. LYNCH, CVS Pharmacy |
| 22-55590 |
| June 15, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 8, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 MANDATE ISSUED. (BGS, CMC and DPC) [12511329] (NAC) [Entered: 08/08/2022 07:57 AM] |
| Filing 3 Filed order (BARRY G. SILVERMAN, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN and DANIEL P. COLLINS) : A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the June 10, 2022 notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days after the district courts judgment entered on March 31, 2022. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(a); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirement of timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional). Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are denied as moot. DISMISSED. [12495007] (RT) [Entered: 07/15/2022 02:14 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed Appellant Shannon Clark motion to appoint pro bono counsel. Deficiencies: None. [12489643] (NAC) [Entered: 07/08/2022 02:23 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Shannon Clark opening brief due 08/09/2022. Appellees Garfield Beach CVS, LLC and Karen S. Lynch answering brief due 09/08/2022. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12472259] (JBS) [Entered: 06/15/2022 03:44 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
