Mirsad Hajro v. Thomas Sullivan, et al
| MIRSAD HAJRO |
| THOMAS SULLIVAN, Magistrate Judge, DAVIS VANDERVELDE, Magistrate Judge, GEORGE SOUTHWORTH, JENNIFER HAJRO, BROOK O'NEIL, MELANIE GAGNEPAIN, LAW/ALTERNATIVE/PLLC, SARAH E. SCOTT, GRETA C. NYCKLEMOE and CHRISTINE LUTZ |
| 23-35115 |
| February 14, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 28, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Filed Appellant Mirsad Hajro motion to accept pleading. Deficiencies: Mandate issued. Served on 03/28/2023. [12686548] (HH) [Entered: 03/31/2023 12:46 PM] |
| Filing 3 MANDATE ISSUED. (WCC, MDS and DAB) [12679193] (HH) [Entered: 03/22/2023 09:27 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed order (WILLIAM C. CANBY, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and DANIEL A. BRESS): A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the February 10, 2023 notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days after the district courts judgment entered on August 23, 2022 or the post-judgment order entered on December 1, 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. DISMISSED. [12664215] (AF) [Entered: 02/28/2023 03:59 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCE OF PRO SE APPELLANT AND NO APPEARANCE FOR APPELLEES.. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Mirsad Hajro opening brief due 04/11/2023. [12652791] (JMR) [Entered: 02/14/2023 11:49 AM] |
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.
