Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Vernon M. Ellis v. Elliott L. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare

Vernon M. Ellis v. Elliott L. Richardson, Sec’y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 471 F.2d 720 (5th Cir. 1973)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1973-01-04
Topic: employee-benefits-and-executive-compensation

PER CURIAM: Appellant instituted this action in the district court seeking to review a denial of social security disability benefits. The district court issued an order of dismissal which was timely followed by appellant's Rule 59 motion 1 to reconsider. Such motion was denied. Appellant filed another motion to reconsider under Rule 59 based upon substantially the same grounds as urged in the earlier motion. The second motion was likewise denied. *721 Pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a), appellant had sixty days from the entry of the order of dismissal to file a notice of appeal.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Vernon M. Ellis v. Elliott L. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 38 opinions

ELLIS v. RICHARDSON,471 F.2d 720(5th Cir. 1973)

VERNON M. ELLIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ELLIOTT L. RICHARDSON, SECRETARY OF

HEALTH, EDUCATION WELFARE, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

No. 72-2952.

Summary Calendar.^fn*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

January 4, 1973.

H.H. Gearinger, Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiff-appellant.

John W. Stokes, Jr., U.S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., Kathryn Baldwin, Eric B. Chaikin, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Before THORNBERRY, COLEMAN and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[1] Appellant instituted this action in the district court seeking to review a denial of social security disability benefits. The district court issued an order of dismissal which was timely followed by appellant's Rule 59 motion¹to reconsider. Such motion was denied. Appellant filed another motion to reconsider under Rule 59 based upon substantially the same grounds as urged in the earlier motion. The second motion was likewise denied.Page 721

[2] Pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure4(a), appellant had sixty days from the entry of the order of dismissal to file a notice of appeal. The filing of the first Rule 59 motion terminated the running of the time for the appeal, but the second such motion based upon the same grounds did not.

[3] In this case appellant had sixty days from the denial of his first Rule 59 motion in which to file notice of appeal. Having failed to do so, we are therefore without jurisdiction to consider the merits of his claim and accordingly this appeal is hereby dismissed.

Rule 18, 5 Cir.; See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970,431 F.2d 409. ↩
Fed.R.Civ.P.59. ↩